Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-25-Speech-3-469"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090325.34.3-469"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the internal market is the EU’s absolute greatest contribution to freedom and prosperity in Europe. Among other things, it requires effective antitrust legislation. What we are now considering is the issue of damages actions for breach of antitrust rules.
There are good fundamental reasons for citizens and companies to be able to claim damages. Mr Lehne’s report indicates, to some extent unintentionally, the problems and the risks involved. The white paper talks of a European legal culture, but this does not exist. We should not create regulations based on wishful thinking. The rapporteur intends us to avoid an ‘Americanised’ compensation culture. This is also wishful thinking. On the contrary, the risks of such a culture occurring are high.
The division of responsibility between the EU institutions and the Member States has been ignored. There is no objective analysis of what is required by the subsidiarity principle. The principle is quite simply not taken seriously.
There are also many other unclear points and points that are at risk of being completely arbitrary. Paragraphs 7 and 11 together instil a sense of misgiving. An obvious starting point must be damages actions on the basis of a breach of antitrust rules. It requires the crime to have been established in court, after which
would presumably have to apply, even in the context of an individual claim, so that judgments relating to a single case cannot be revisited.
Paragraphs 15 and 18 together allow the plaintiff to choose the legal system that is most favourable. This creates legal uncertainty and will result in ‘forum shopping’, which will be a real threat.
The information asymmetry is to be reduced by forcing companies to provide information to the plaintiff. This will result in the subjective handling of important business information, which can be misused.
There are far too many risks and points that are unclear at this stage. The Chamber should therefore reject this report and request a more detailed analysis of the issue before we take a decision."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples