Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-06-Speech-4-027"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070906.2.4-027"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to express my warm thanks to Mrs Patrie and above all to our shadow rapporteur, Kurt Lechner, whose comments in this debate I completely endorse. In my view, Commissioner, the decision-making process and the submission of your Green Paper are an exemplary model of good cooperation between Parliament and the Commission, highlighting that we need this kind of effective cooperation in other areas as well.
What we are dealing with here, with this more technical report, is the interface between European consumer legislation and European internal market legislation, because on the one hand, we have the development of the common frame of reference, where until now, not enough texts have been available. The issues which have been raised are Rome I, the regulation in the Committee on Legal Affairs and Europe's consumer acquis. I believe that these measures must always be viewed in relation to each other so that in the end we have a coherent and unified law which – as other speakers have already mentioned – is transparent for the consumer.
However, transparency for the consumer does not in every case necessarily mean – as Mr Lechner has already stated – that we should mix up all the highest standards from every Member State into a kind of European hotch-potch; instead, we really should be considering at European level which targeted strategy we need to deploy in order to provide the European consumer with clear and coherent European consumer legislation. The proposal for a ‘blue flag’ for the European consumer, for the purchaser, may have its appeal, but I believe that it would of course be even more important and even better for the internal market if we could successfully guide the Member States along a unified course in their national legislation.
This brings me to the issue of minimum and maximum harmonisation. I believe – as some of my colleagues from my group have already said – that we must be cautious in our arguments. The internal market thrives on the fact that the consumers can depend on what they perceive to be valid legal norms. Of course, that only holds good if these legal norms apply everywhere. I therefore welcome the fact that Mrs Gebhardt has said that we need unified definitions of terminology in many areas, for example.
However, I also believe that we must proceed cautiously on other points and that we must make it clear to the Member States that if we want to have a single internal market and unified consumer protection provisions, this cannot work if we adhere to the notion that 'everyone can add a bit on top', as that is guaranteed to confuse the consumer. That is the line that we will pursue in the vote afterwards as well.
Commissioner, the collective data has already been mentioned. We are very well-disposed towards your activities to benefit the consumer, including as regards the issue of class actions. However, it must also be clear that in Europe we definitely wish to rule out US conditions, and so we are very keen to see what you intend to present to us in detail, having already outlined some of it in broad terms. We want to be reassured that you are definitely ruling out US conditions in Europe. Class action lawsuits – and the PPE-DE Group will itself put forward something here – and test cases are entirely in the consumer's interest and that is something that we would also support."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples