Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-11-19-Speech-1-044-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20121119.17.1-044-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, at a time when, for some nostalgic nationalists, speaking of closer European integration sounds provocative, we are about to vote on amendments to a regulation which forms the basis for the difficult but necessary process of harmonising and bringing closer together the national legal systems. Allow me therefore to congratulate Mr Zwiefka on the excellent work carried out and his success – after around two years of difficult negotiations – in bringing to a close the process of revising a regulation which has been of fundamental importance to citizens of the Union. Brussels I in fact establishes provisions which are of the utmost importance in ensuring sufficient access to justice and equality of treatment before all the courts which have competence in the European Union.
It sets up common standards in civil and commercial matters, clarifying which Court has competence in a cross-border dispute, and making the sentences issued enforceable in the different States. The amendments made to the regulation are required in order to put into practice the wish to create a European area for justice which promotes judicial certainty and predictability of decisions, thus making transnational trade easier and strengthening the single market. That said, I believe that progress towards an ever deeper harmonisation of the standards of substantive law must proceed with the appropriate caution and attention in order to ensure certainty of law and to protect less favoured parties.
For this reason, I agree with the approach taken by the rapporteur in favour of consumers, who will benefit from the principle of protection for the weaker party. A basic principle under which, in a legal dispute between consumers and businesses, the consumer will always be able to choose a court in the Member State of his or her residence.
Similarly, I share the prudent approach taken by Mr Zwiefka regarding the abolition of the
: while on the one hand abolishing the
would allow recognition of sentences to be speeded up at a later stage, on the other I believe that measures for safeguarding defendants’ rights must be maintained. It is therefore necessary for defendants to have the possibility of contesting a decision if their right to a fair trial has been breached and if the decision goes against
in the reference State.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my compliments to the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs. I hope we shall reach broad interinstitutional and political consensus on a regulation which forms the template not only for cooperation in the civil courts but also for political determination based on the process of European integration."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"ordre public"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples