Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-06-Speech-4-012"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070906.2.4-012"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would also like to express my particular thanks not only to Commissioner Kuneva, who has presented us with a very good text, but also our rapporteur, Mrs Patrie, who has done outstanding work and progressed the dossier in key respects, so that despite the many contentious points arising in our committee, we are, overall, on track towards good legislation. I am very grateful for that.
What does the approach taken here mean? The task, after all, is to do something for consumers, and to make the law simpler, clearer and more comprehensible. This is the objective we want to pursue, so this mixed approach is precisely the right one. Horizontal aspects, full harmonisation where possible, for example as regards the definition of the consumer or the definition of business, is what this is about, but it is also about implementing the European Union's Treaties, which allow the Member States to retain or introduce a higher standard of law, if they consider it right to do so. This law must naturally be respected.
On the issue of mutual recognition, this means confidence among citizens and it means consumer confidence. That is what this is about, and that is what we need to develop. I fully endorse what Mrs Wallis has said: we must ensure that private international law, as defined in Rome I, for example, is also respected. Otherwise, we will again have this patchwork which leads to a lack of clarity and to legal uncertainty, which is not what we want. For that reason, my group says a resounding 'no' to this bizarre internal market clause which is constantly being upheld by some Members of this House. None of them has so far been able to explain to me what they are actually trying to achieve. However, I suspect that what is behind it is an attempt to call the provisions of Rome I into question once more. We say a resounding 'no' to that; that is why we do not want this provision.
As regards class actions, Mr Lechner, it really is becoming quite ridiculous when I hear you say that we do not want US conditions. Of course we do not want them. We want class actions which help our citizens to assert their rights but respect the traditions and culture that we enjoy in the European Union. We certainly do not want to introduce US conditions. That is not what this is about. It is about enabling our citizens to assert their rights. I think it is most unfortunate that your group is still insisting on saying 'no' here. You really should think about what you actually want.
We want more clarity; in other words, we want to reduce the lack of clarity in the law so as to ensure the unhindered application of the principles contained in the European Union's Treaties, and we want to honour the international agreements that we have concluded. This is the basis which will ensure that consumers are genuinely well-protected, that they are aware of their rights and that they are also equipped with the means to enforce these rights. If we can achieve that, Mrs Kuneva and Mrs Patrie, we will have done a lot of good and we will be making real progress."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples