Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-10-24-Speech-3-484"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071024.45.3-484"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, that was an interesting debate. We now move on to a very different subject area. We will see if we can achieve an outcome sooner or later.
There is a saying which, I presume, is understood throughout Europe, namely that money does not bring happiness, but it does bring peace of mind. In that spirit, let me start by wishing all our citizens in Europe peace of mind.
However, if you are owed money by another person, if someone owes you money from a sale, damages or similar, this often gives cause for concern rather than peace of mind. Will the debtor evade his commitments? Will he conceal his money or his assets, perhaps at an even later hour than our debate this evening?
All Member States have procedures which aim to prevent this from occurring. They include attachments, injunctions, arrest and seizure: there are many different terms. Procedures vary very widely and the situation is extremely complicated, and there is of course the language issue as well. Anyone wishing to make use of Member States’ various cross-border procedures may well find that the horse has bolted, or as we say in Germany, the hare is already on the other side of the hill. In other words, the debtor has had time to hide his assets.
This is now a widespread problem across Europe’s borders, and it is becoming increasingly pressing given that we are all aiming for a single payment area with cash-free transactions. That means that the opportunities to hide assets on the other side of the hill are steadily growing. That is why the Commission has taken the initiative and, I would emphasise, is quite right to do so. It has presented a very good Green Paper which is comprehensive and detailed, albeit with some points which will undoubtedly require further clarification. That is still ahead of us and is the purpose of the hearing. At this stage, the European Parliament cannot deal with all aspects in detail, and neither can I, so I shall simply mention some of the key points.
First of all, although this can really be taken for granted, the report is only about the attachment of bank accounts and temporarily freezing bank deposits. It is not about final settlement. Secondly, it is only about financial assets held in bank accounts. It does not deal with injunctions or the attachment of other assets. That raises the question of whether our purposes would really be served through the harmonisation of 27 different systems. In my view, that would be an extremely unwieldy approach and would take forever to achieve. It encroaches on so many other areas that it would not be helpful. The right approach is what the Commission has in mind: an independent and additional European procedure, preferably in the form of a regulation, to exist in parallel to the national provisions, which would remain in force. I should also mention the ‘Brussels I’ Regulation at this juncture. The Regulation which already exists is not adequate. The creditor must not only demonstrate credibly and summarily that he has a claim but must also demonstrate the risk.
Our particular concern, which I share, is to protect the creditor. What I do not want, under any circumstances, is a situation in which creditors or third parties suffer harm precisely because we have a European regulation. That would reverberate on Europe itself. In some cases, attachment without just cause can destroy a person’s livelihood. I would simply like to mention the main points: that a creditor may be liable for damages arising for the debtor, that the creditor should be obliged to institute the main proceedings within a fixed time limit, that the creditor may be required to provide security, that the debtor should be entitled to appeal, that a procedure should not be selected which takes an eternity but which is broadly in line with the previous proceedings, that there should be provisions preventing too much money being frozen for the benefit of the creditor, and that the debtor must be guaranteed the wherewithal to live on.
There is the problem of trust accounts. If there is to be any possibility of attachment here – and I will leave that open – they certainly need to be specially protected. The same applies to joint accounts, although this is not the same thing; in fact, the two are not directly related. The point is that it is also important to protect third parties, and special protection measures are required for any third parties involved.
I would just mention that standardised formal notices would be useful for banking communications and, in this connection, would like to conclude by saying that studies comparing the laws in force as well as detailed analyses are undoubtedly required. I would also, and specifically, like to thank the Commission for these comprehensive analyses and studies, and also thank all my colleagues. We worked together very well. I assume that there will be a broad consensus in favour of the report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples