Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-26-Speech-4-050"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090326.3.4-050"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"− Mr President, I should like to thank you for all your valuable opinions. In a way, I am familiar with most of them because we have been discussing, point by point, the most important parts of your concerns and hopes for having collective redress in Europe.
I should like to reiterate once again that I am totally with you in not wanting US-style class actions to be introduced into European culture. I know that is one of your most important preoccupations. As Ms McCarthy also mentioned, this is about damages. This is already happening in the UK, but this has nothing to do with what we are discussing and what I am proposing as our future steps in this direction.
In this respect, I would like to stress the following. Checking to see whether there is a real need for collective redress: yes, we are doing that and we will continue to do so after the green paper. Respecting constitutional constraints: yes. Avoiding US-style class action: yes. Ensuring that damages are compensated, including all costs incurred by the consumer but, at the same time, excluding any element of punitive damage: yes, that is what we have in mind. Discouraging unmeritorious claims, as referred to by Mr Rack: yes. Promoting alternative dispute resolution schemes: of course, because this is less time-consuming, more affordable and easier for both consumers and businesses, and also respecting subsidiarity.
With these few words, I would like to say that we are fully aware of the challenges and we are ready to face these challenges and make a good proposal, step by step, building consensus and common understanding with you.
What I really appreciate today is that all of us recognise that we have a problem and that we are ready to address this problem. So this really is a very good starting point for the next stage of debates. As this is a challenge we face, I would like in particular to stress what Mr Lehne referred to – the common approach, the horizontal approach with Commissioner Kroes. Commissioner Kroes and myself, as well as our respective services, are cooperating very closely in order to ensure that our initiatives are consistent and produce synergies.
The consistency principle does not necessarily rule out that specific situations require specific solutions. Each of the two initiatives has a distinct focus. Whereas the consumer green paper deals with redress for breaches of consumer protection law, the competition white paper is strictly about competition law infringements. Another major difference between the two initiatives is that, whereas the consumer green paper only covers redress for consumers, the redress mechanism suggested in the competition white paper is designed to benefit both consumers and businesses.
So my challenge is to achieve effective redress for our consumers and thereby restore their confidence in the market. From previous discussions, I know that the European Parliament is supporting us in our efforts to achieve this goal. Let me stress again that Parliament, together with Member States and stakeholders, will be convinced that not only is there a problem but also that an effective and balanced solution must and can be found at European level.
I should like to thank you for this fruitful debate and your valuable opinions, and I look forward to working with you on this file over the coming months."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples