Public consultation on the ASSESSMENT OF THE PLANNED COHERENT EUROPEAN APPROACH TO COLLECTIVE REDRESS PUBLIC CONSULTATION PAPER

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Public consultation on the ASSESSMENT OF THE PLANNED COHERENT EUROPEAN APPROACH TO COLLECTIVE REDRESS PUBLIC CONSULTATION PAPER"

Transcription

1 Rue d Arlon Brussels Telephone: Telefax: office@eucope.org Date: April Public consultation on the ASSESSMENT OF THE PLANNED COHERENT EUROPEAN APPROACH TO COLLECTIVE REDRESS PUBLIC CONSULTATION PAPER Comments of the European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs (EUCOPE) The European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs (EUCOPE, was founded to promote companies and associations active in research, development, production and distribution of pharmaceutical products and enhance their scientific, technical, economic and legal objectives. Via the German Pharmaceutical Industry Association BPI with its 270 member companies and the UK pharma association EMIG with its 140 member companies EUCOPE represents more than 400 member companies, many of them SMEs. In addition, many innovative companies from Sweden, UK, Bulgaria, Italy, Greece, Germany, the Netherlands and Austria are represented on the board of the association. I. General findings EUCOPE appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned consultation of the European Commission on collective redress. EUCOPE agrees with the European Commission that the effective enforcement of the consumer rights is to be regarded as an established principle of European Union law. Effective and timely measures to claim remedies in private litigation are crucial for legal protection in Member States. However, EUCOPE opposes the introduction of consumer collective redress legislation for the following reasons: Before new measures such as collective redress are implemented by EU law the potential shortcomings of the existing situation in Member States should be analyzed in detail. Many Member States provide for an effective system of legal protection in private litigation making instruments such as collective redress superfluous. However, if this analysis reveals shortcomings in Member States which could potentially be remedied EUCOPE Rue d Arlon Brussels

2 page 2 by collective redress the potential impact of this instrument on businesses should be weighed against its potential benefits. The legal tradition in EU Member States is deeply founded in the general co-existence of public and private enforcement. This is especially true for regulated industries such as the chemical, food or pharmaceutical industry. In regulated industries consumer rights are effectively safeguarded by legal provisions guaranteeing for quality, safety and efficacy of the products. In the pharmaceutical industry detailed provisions on clinical trials 1, marketing authorizations 2 and pharmacovigilance 3 and Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) 4 guarantee the safety, quality and efficacy of medicinal products. The monitoring of medicinal products in the market from the date of marketing approval is of particular importance. Pharmaceutical manufacturers must submit all received adverse reactions in electronic form to the respective national competent authority due to pharmacovigilance provisions. These reports are circulated within hours at EU level and globally. Immediately after the appropriate measures have to be taken. Patients are given access to adverse reaction reports. This system is complemented by the Product Liability Directive for all industry sectors 5. In the pharmaceutical industry specific provisions provide for patient information claims against the pharmaceutical company (see for example 84a of the German Drug Law). Mandatory insurance coverage is foreseen as well as the guarantee that the pharmaceutical company can meet its legal obligations concerning the compensation (see for example 94 of the German Drug Law). Strict liability in tort cases complement this specific legal framework (see for example 84 of the German Drug Law). Due to patient information rights these measures are utilized. In addition, the danger of abuse inherent to collective redress could deter - especially small- and medium-sized (SMEs) - innovative pharmaceutical companies from introducing products in certain markets. Thus, innovation could be hindered and impact the global competitiveness of the EU. The Commission assumes that not only consumers but also SMEs would make use of collective redress claims. The contrary is the case: Given the possibility of collective redress being launched against SMEs, SMEs are more concerned about avoiding bankruptcy and the loss of reputation than using this instrument itself. Experiences in the US show that approximately 1/3 of the companies concerned by a collective redress go into bankruptcy. 1 Directive 2001/20/EC. 2 Directive 2001/83/EC respectively Regulation (EC) 726/ Directive 2001/83/EG, title IX. 4 Directive 2003/94/EC. 5 Directive 85/374/EEC.

3 page 3 Moreover, due to the risk of a considerable loss of reputation companies might find themselves forced to agree to costly settlements even when there is no damage. A legal basis for the introduction of collective redress is only given in case of impact on the internal market. The EU is not competent for purely national cases due to the principle of subsidiarity. The survey presented by the Commission includes 326 cases over 10 years, whereas only 10% had cross-boarder implications - i.e. only four cases per year. Legislative action on the EU level is not justified since only few consumers are concerned. For these reasons the following conclusion has to be drawn: before implementing new legal instruments such as collective redress by EU law the existing regulations and mechanisms in Member States should be examined, their strengths and weaknesses should be analyzed. Only if an ineffectiveness of national systems of private litigation is proven and consumers are frequently deterred from claiming damages the instrument of collective redress can be considered. EUCOPE welcomes that the European Commission poses the principal question of whether collective redress should be introduced at all or not. However, in case such legislation would be introduced, EUCOPE would call for the following minimum requirements also in order to maintain the elementary principles of continental European legal systems: No opt-out-system in which initially all potentially affected consumers are included and in which therefore the plaintiff institution is not obliged to identify the victims being represented; the defendant must be able to survey the group of complainants and the amount of damage. A willful act of the consumer to participate in the action must be mandatory (opt-in) due to the right of self-determination and for transparency reasons. The party losing the litigation has to bear the costs of the litigation; the decisive factor for lodging a complaint should be the prospect of success and not the economic strength of the complainant / plaintiff. Damages should only serve as compensation for real losses and not as penalty (no punitive damages); in the US, only a small fraction of the total damages is awarded to the injured party, the larger proportion is spent on attorneys' fees; therefore, contingency fees should also be avoided. Additionally, we would like to point to the fact that the ECJ will grant damages only for losses actually sustained and will only exceptionally award for non-material damage; the ECJ/CFI is willing in principle also to give damages for lost profits but is reluctant to do so 6. 6 Case T-84/98 C v. Council (2000), ECR IA-113, paras ; Case T-307/01, Jean-Paul Francois v. Commission (2004) ECR II-1669, paras ; Case T-48/01 Francois Vainker and Brenda Vainker v. European Parliament (2004) ECR II-197, para. 180; Case T-309/03 Grau v. Commission (2006) ECR II

4 page 4 II. Remarks on specific Consultation Items Q 1 What added value would the introduction of new mechanisms of collective redress (injunctive and/or compensatory) have for the enforcement of EU law? We refer to our general considerations. We strongly disagree with the focus on private enforcement of the consultation paper. Resources and efforts of EU policy-makers should concentrate on maintaining and improving public enforcement in Europe, and not shifting towards a private enforcement system. If there is a need to address problems with public enforcement, these should be addressed separately, but certainly the Commission and Member States should not abdicate from their responsibilities and transfer it to private parties. Q 2 Should private collective redress be independent of, complementary to, or subsidiary to enforcement by public bodies? Is there need for coordination between private collective redress and public enforcement? If yes, how can this coordination be achieved? In your view, are there examples in the Member States or in third countries that you consider particularly instructive for any possible EU initiative? EUCOPE believes that the Commission should concentrate on strengthening public enforcement, ensuring that it operates in a way that is complementary to tort law and facilitates private claimants in obtaining appropriate redress. Public Authorities are the sole entities that represent and defend the public interest. Law enforcement must therefore remain strongly in their hands in order to guarantee fairness and balance to citizens and society in general, and to avoid encouraging litigation spurring primarily from the commercial interest of intermediaries. It would be wrong to exploit the law of damages for the purpose of state governance. Goals that go beyond the damage compensation, e.g. deterrence and prevention are socio-political objectives and should only be enforced by public authorities. A system which creates incentives for individuals to implement public policy objectives has great potential for abuse. Q 3 Should the EU strengthen the role of national public bodies and/or private representative organisations in the enforcement of EU law? If so, how and in which areas should this be done? The strengthening of national public bodies and/or private representative organizations in the enforcement of EU law is not necessary as already set out in questions 1 and 2. Q 4 What in your opinion is required for an action at European level on collective redress (injunctive and/or compensatory) to conform with the principles of EU law, e.g. those of subsidiarity, proportionality and effectiveness? Would your answer vary depending on the area in which action is taken? According to the Commission's study, only 10% of the complaints have cross-border character. Thus, there is no need for such an EU-intervention. If any further action is to be envisaged, it should be carefully assessed in the light of the principle of subsidiarity and on the need to solve a cross-border problem. In this context, looking at the data produced in previous studies, the crossborder dimension is not sufficiently relevant to justify action at EU level. This shows that crossborder collective redress is not the main problem that calls for EU action. We question the grounds

5 page 5 for EU action on collective redress, since to date there is not enough evidence of the existence of a cross-border element to justify it. Q 5 Would it be sufficient to extend the scope of the existing EU rules on collective injunctive relief to other areas; or would it be appropriate to introduce mechanisms of collective compensatory redress at EU level? We are against the imposition of collective injunctive relief at European level. The various court actions available in Member States and at EU level are sufficient to protect the legitimate interests of consumers and competitors. Q 6 Would possible EU action require a legally binding approach or a non-binding approach (such as a set of good practices guidance)? How do you see the respective benefits or risks of each approach? Would your answer vary depending on the area in which action is taken? Due to the lack of a legal basis and the principle of subsidiarity we reject the introduction of a legislative instrument in all areas (see also comments on question 4). There is a lack of a uniform civil procedure law in the Member States. It is difficult to bring these national civil procedures in line since there are significant differences as a result of different legal traditions. Q 7 Do you agree that any possible EU initiative on collective redress (injunctive and/or compensatory) should comply with a set of common principles established at EU level? What should these principles be? To which principle would you attach special significance? EUCOPE welcomes that the European Commission poses the principal question of whether collective redress should be introduced at all or not. However, in case such legislation would be introduced, EUCOPE would call for the following minimum requirements also in order to maintain the elementary principles of continental European legal systems: No opt-out-system in which initially all potentially affected consumers are included and in which therefore the plaintiff institution is not obliged to identify the victims being represented; the defendant must be able to survey the group of complainants and the amount of damage. A willful act of the consumer to participate in the action must be mandatory (opt-in) due to the right of self-determination and for transparency reasons. The party losing the litigation has to bear the costs of the litigation; the decisive factor for lodging a complaint should be the prospect of success and not the economic strength of the complainant / plaintiff. Damages should only serve as compensation for real losses and not as penalty (no punitive damages); in the US, only a small fraction of the total damages is awarded to the injured party, the larger proportion is spent for attorneys' fees; therefore, contingency fees should also be avoided.

6 page 6 Q 8 As cited above, a number of Member States have adopted initiatives in the area of collective redress. Could the experience gained so far by the Member States contribute to formulating a European set of principles? Only very few Member States have sufficient experience with instruments of collective redress. Many instruments have been introduced only in recent years. For example, Italy and Poland have recently introduced instruments of collective redress but only by a very limited sectoral approach. The outcome of these legal instruments should first be awaited and the specifics of the industry concerned should be considered. Q 9 Are there specific features of any possible EU initiative that, in your opinion, are necessary to ensure effective access to justice while taking due account of the EU legal tradition and the legal orders of the 27 Member States? We refer to our response to question 7. The legal tradition in EU Member States is deeply founded in the general co-existence of public and private enforcement. This is especially true for regulated industries such as the chemical, food or pharmaceutical industry. In regulated industries consumer rights are effectively safeguarded by public law and provisions guaranteeing for quality, safety and efficacy of the products. Q 10 Are you aware of specific good practices in the area of collective redress in one or more Member States that could serve as inspiration from which the EU/other Member States could learn? Please explain why you consider these practices as particular valuable. Are there on the other hand national practices that have posed problems and how have/could these problems be overcome? The class actions system in the US is to be mentioned as a negative example. In Germany, there are good experiences with the joint statement of facts and joint presentation of proof of several plaintiffs or defendants ( 59 ZPO) or the combination of pending cases ( 147 ZPO). Q 11 In your view, what would be the defining features of an efficient and effective system of collective redress? Are there specific features that need to be present if the collective redress mechanism would be open for SMEs? The danger of abuse inherent to collective redress could deter especially SMEs from introducing products in certain markets. Thus, innovation could be hindered and impact the global competitiveness of the EU. The Commission assumes that not only consumers but also SMEs would make use of collective redress claims. The contrary is the case: Given the possibility of collective redress being launched against SMEs, SMEs is more concerned about avoiding bankruptcy and the loss of reputation than using this instrument itself. Experiences in the US show that approximately 1/3 of the companies concerned by a collective redress go into bankruptcy. Q 12 How can effective redress be obtained, while avoiding lengthy and costly litigation?

7 page 7 EUCOPE would like to reiterate once more the underestimated potential of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (ADRs) like mediation and arbitration, the need to improve existing enforcement instruments and information to consumers before creating new judicial mechanisms. Q 13 How, when and by whom should victims of EU law infringements be informed about the possibilities to bring a collective (injunctive and/or compensatory) claim or to join an existing lawsuit? What would be the most efficient means to make sure that a maximum of victims are informed, in particular when victims are domiciled in several Member States? Informing victims of their legal protection is important. However, it is also important to limit the potential for abuse. By large-scale media campaigns, the reputation of a defendant company can be seriously damaged - even before the commencement of proceedings, regardless of the merits of the action and the subsequent outcome of the trial. The damaged image of the company may lead to declines in business and to sharp declines in the stock market. This puts considerable pressure on the company to agree as quickly as possible to a potentially disadvantageous settlement. Hence, the information of the victim must be established in a fair and objective framework. In the case of deliberate misinformation and lurid media campaigns, there must be the possibility of sanctions. For these reasons, government institutions should neither participate in the dissemination of information about the opportunity to file a collective redress nor provide financial support for such campaigns. If at all, existing public platforms and information portals can report in a neutral form of proceedings or possible lawsuits. Q 14 How the efficient representation of victims could be best achieved, in particular in crossborder situations? How could cooperation between different representative entities be facilitated, in particular in cross-border cases? In our view, the Commission has not convincingly shown that there is a deficit of effective law enforcement concerning cross-border cases: According to the study Evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of collective redress mechanisms in the EU, only 10% of the complaints are of a cross-border nature. More generally, closer cooperation between representative bodies in different Member States based on existing platforms such as the European Consumer Centres Network (ECC-Net) is worth considering. Q 15 Apart from a judicial mechanism, which other incentives would be necessary to promote recourse to ADR in situations of multiple claims? ADR methods cause lower costs and ensure a faster process. These efficiency considerations are incentives to use ADR procedures instead of collective redress. Furthermore, there is a lower degree of public interest and due to the voluntary nature of the proceedings a greater willingness to reach agreements on both sides. If collective redress should be lodged in the context of ADRs - what we do not support - at least the same criteria as we outlined in question 7 for collective redress mechanisms have to apply to prevent abuse.

8 page 8 Q 16 Should an attempt to resolve a dispute via collective consensual dispute resolution be a mandatory step in connection with a collective court case for compensation? We do not support the combination of these mechanisms but see ADR as an alternative. We refer to question 15. In cases in which a party wishes to get a verdict (e.g. legal expenses insurance is on the side of the consumer) or where the chances of success are low from the outset, they would only lead to more costs and a longer duration of proceedings. Therefore, the use of ADR mechanisms must be made on a voluntary basis. Q 17 How can the fairness of the outcome of a collective consensual dispute resolution best be guaranteed? Should the courts exercise such fairness control? We do not support collective consensual dispute resolution mechanisms. Alternatively: Only if an independent neutral party carries out the collective consensual dispute resolution the latter would have a fair result. The review should be limited to an absolute abuse control for serious violations of basic legal principles. Q 18 Should it be possible to make the outcome of a collective consensual dispute resolution binding on the participating parties also in cases which are currently not covered by Directive 2008/52/EC on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters? EUCOPE does not favor the establishment of agreed collective dispute resolution. In principle, however, a legal obligation seems possible if the risk of abuses (see answer to question 7) is excluded. Q 19 Are there any other issues with regard to collective consensual dispute resolution that need to be ensured for effective access to justice? Collective consensual dispute resolutions have (as well as collective legal redress) a significant potential for abuse. If, however, collective ADR mechanisms were to be established, the continental European legal traditions would have to be respected and sufficient safeguards created. It is particularly important that the so-called "opt-out"-model and financial third party interests are excluded in ADR mechanisms, and that the "loser pays"-principle is maintained (see the restriction of abuses such as we outlined in the answer to question 7). Q 20 How could the legitimate interests of all parties adequately be safeguarded in (injunctive and/or compensatory) collective redress actions? Which safeguards existing in Member States or in third countries do you consider as particularly successful in limiting abusive litigation? EUCOPE does not agree with the introduction of collective redress actions. If an introduction is envisaged, the safeguard mechanisms mentioned in answer 7 must be observed cumulatively. Q 21 Should the "loser pays" principle apply to (injunctive and/or compensatory) collective actions in the EU? Are there circumstances which in your view would justify exceptions to this principle15? If so, should those exceptions rigorously be circumscribed by law or should they be left to case-bycase assessment by the courts, possibly within the framework of a general legal provision?

9 page 9 The loser pays" principle should be maintained without exception. This principle exists in almost all Member States and is useful because it prevents the courts from being swamped with manifestly unfounded claims. Incentives of court actions and thus higher costs also for consumers should not be created via changes in cost provisions. This would inevitably support the creation of a class action industry aiming at the rapid conclusion of settlements. These excesses are known in the US complaint system and should not be imported to Europe. In particular, Germany already has systems that minimize the risk of litigation costs for potential claimants, e.g. the instrument of legal aid in terms of (partly) public funding. Alternatively, there is the possibility to assign a compensation claim - or a variety of claims of many injured parties - to a trustee. He may assert such claims directly in his own name. Q 22 Who should be allowed to bring a collective redress action? Should the right to bring a collective redress action be reserved for certain entities? If so, what are the criteria to be fulfilled by such entities? Please mention if your reply varies depending on the kind of collective redress mechanism and on the kind of victims (e.g. consumers or SMEs). Persons or entities that are not the claimants themselves should not be entitled to claim compensation. Q 23 What role should be given to the judge in collective redress proceedings? Where representative entities are entitled to bring a claim, should these entities be recognized as representative entities by a competent government body or should this issue be left to a case-bycase assessment by the courts? In case the Commission will submit a proposal for the introduction of collective redress, the judge should be granted a central role in the decision to authorize collective redress. In particular, the legitimacy of the plaintiff and the prospects of success should be reviewed in advance. One of the roles of judge is also to ensure that multiple claims lodged by the same defendant regarding the same injury are excluded. This may prove to be problematic for the following reasons: A variety of possible individual, collective or representative action against the defendants, possibly at the same time cross-border dimension and multiple court jurisdiction. The national judges would be completely overwhelmed with the different scenarios (in the worst case: different processes with a variety of plaintiffs at different levels of the supply chain in different countries and at different times). Representative bodies should obtain prior authorization and should be recognized by an appropriate governmental body. State recognition and the registration of the representative body in an official register should be a requirement for the right to bring legal action. Organizations that serve only primarily a charitable purpose, but in reality pursue their own financial interests should be excluded. Representative bodies that have been approved in other Member States should be subject to a 'quality check ' in the respective state. Q 24 Which other safeguards should be incorporated in any possible European initiative on collective redress?

10 page 10 The safeguard mechanisms mentioned in answer 7 must be observed cumulatively. Q 25 How could funding for collective redress actions (injunctive and/or compensatory) be arranged in an appropriate manner, in particular in view of the need to avoid abusive litigation? Compliance with the "loser pays" principle is of crucial importance. EUCOPE strongly opposes any changes in the existing cost rules - such as a general approval of contingency fees for lawyers. This would allow for a huge potential for abuse, if - in particular in mass procedures - incentives would be set in the way that litigation could be pursued without financial risk for the plaintiff. The decisive factor for lodging a complaint should be the prospect of success. The existing instruments in Germany - e.g. the above-mentioned legal aid - offer sufficient opportunities to minimize the litigation cost risk of the applicant. Litigation financing by private parties is problematic, especially if financial self-interests of third financiers are involved (see also answers to questions 21 and 26). Q 26 Are non-public solutions of financing (such as third party funding or legal costs insurance) conceivable which would ensure the right balance between guaranteeing access to justice and avoiding any abuse of procedure? In our view, financial support from the state (such as the German legal aid) offers the best opportunity to help applicants with their claims and avoids abusive legal processes. The following scenario must be seen critically: On the one hand, the third party financier has a high financial interest in the success of the claim, on the other hand he does not have a correspondingly high own cost risk. The danger here is that collective redress will be increasingly seen as a new business model and that a European class action industry will develop. In this case, the awarded damages are not used to compensate the injured party, but instead are awarded to the organization of the third party financier. The existing system of legal insurance is however, a solid type of action financing. Insurers consider in advance whether the prosecution offers a reasonable prospect of success and whether the insured is at fault. A financial interest of legal expenses insurances, which can lead to unfair legal proceedings is not to be feared. Also the German legal aid finances in general only the most promising cases. Abusive actions have - given the own cost risk - no chance. Q 27 Should representative entities bringing collective redress actions be able to recover the costs of proceedings, including their administrative costs, from the losing party? Alternatively, are there other means to cover the costs of representative entities? The loser pays principle must also apply when representative bodies lodge a complaint. Thereafter, representative bodies can claim their legal costs from the losing party if they are successful.

11 page 11 Q 28 Are there any further issues regarding funding of collective redress that should be considered to ensure effective access to justice? The points mentioned in the answers to questions 21 and should be considered. Q 29 Are there to your knowledge examples of specific cross-border problems in the practical application of the jurisdiction, recognition or enforcement of judgements? What consequences did these problems have and what counter-strategies were ultimately found? There may be long waiting times for enforcement of court proceeding but they are inherent to the respective Member State system and due to staff shortages, structuring of processes and workload. Q 30 Are special rules on jurisdiction, recognition, enforcement of judgments and /or applicable law required with regard to collective redress to ensure effective enforcement of EU law across the EU? EUCOPE totally opposes the introduction of consumer collective redress legislation. Q 31 Do you see a need for any other special rules with regard to collective redress in crossborder situations, for example for collective consensual dispute resolution or for infringements of EU legislation by online providers for goods and services? EUCOPE rejects collective dispute resolution mechanisms, since there are the same risks of abuse as for collective enforcement instruments. If the EU-Commission nevertheless has another opinion, the same minimum standards must be observed as outlined in our answer to question 7. Q 32 Are there any other common to add principles which should be added by the EU? There is no need for further common principles to be added by the EU. In any case, every action of the EU must be based on the continental European legal tradition. Q 33 Should the Commission's work on compensatory collective redress be extended to other areas of EU law besides competition and consumer protection? If so, to which ones? Are there specificities of these areas that would need to be taken into account? No. We reject compensatory collective redress in competition law and in consumer protection law. Also as regards other areas of EU law there is no need to establish collective redress instruments. Q 34 Should any possible EU initiative on collective redress be of general scope, or would it be more appropriate to consider initiatives in specific policy fields? EUCOPE refuses any EU legislative initiative in the field of collective redress. It is of primary importance that a balance is struck between the interests of the various players. The economic costs imposed on society by a judicial system of collective redress and the increase in litigation it entails should be evaluated. The US experience should also be taken into account to avoid going

12 page 12 down a similar route. Declaring that a European approach to collective redress will avoid certain excesses is not enough. There are too many concerns that have not been answered yet. EUCOPE does not consider the diversity of instruments to be a problem. We do not support a onesize-fits-all approach, but are in favor of flexibility, pragmatism and efficiency. National legal traditions and specificities have to be respected. European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs (EUCOPE) Dr. Alexander Natz Secretary General

CONSULTATION ON COLLECTIVE REDRESS GREEK MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

CONSULTATION ON COLLECTIVE REDRESS GREEK MINISTRY OF JUSTICE CONSULTATION ON COLLECTIVE REDRESS GREEK MINISTRY OF JUSTICE Q 1 What added value would the introduction of new mechanisms of collective redress (injunctive and/or compensatory) have for the enforcement

More information

CLASS ACTION DEVELOPMENTS IN EUROPE (April 2015) Stefaan Voet. Recommendation on Common Principles for Collective Redress Mechanisms

CLASS ACTION DEVELOPMENTS IN EUROPE (April 2015) Stefaan Voet. Recommendation on Common Principles for Collective Redress Mechanisms CLASS ACTION DEVELOPMENTS IN EUROPE (April 2015) Stefaan Voet Recommendation on Common Principles for Collective Redress Mechanisms In June 2013, the European Commission published its long-awaited Recommendation

More information

CONSULTATION ON COLLECTIVE REDRESS RESPONSE OF HOGAN LOVELLS INTERNATIONAL LLP (NOT FOR PUBLICATION) HOGAN LOVELLS INTERNATIONAL LLP

CONSULTATION ON COLLECTIVE REDRESS RESPONSE OF HOGAN LOVELLS INTERNATIONAL LLP (NOT FOR PUBLICATION) HOGAN LOVELLS INTERNATIONAL LLP CONSULTATION ON COLLECTIVE REDRESS RESPONSE OF HOGAN LOVELLS INTERNATIONAL LLP (NOT FOR PUBLICATION) HOGAN LOVELLS INTERNATIONAL LLP Hogan Lovells is a global law firm created to provide high quality advice

More information

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 25.1.2018 COM(2018) 40 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the implementation of the

More information

E U C O P E S y n o p s i s

E U C O P E S y n o p s i s E U C O P E S y n o p s i s Based on Regulation (EU) No 1235/2010 as published in the Official Journal of the European Union (L 348/1, 31.12.2010) Rue d Arlon 50 1000 Brussels www.eucope.org natz@eucope.org

More information

European Commission staff working document - public consultation: Towards a coherent European Approach to Collective Redress

European Commission staff working document - public consultation: Towards a coherent European Approach to Collective Redress Statement, 30 April 2011 Consultation on Collective Redress European Commission staff working document - public consultation: Towards a coherent European Approach to Collective Redress Contact: Deutsche

More information

THE PERMANENT REPRESENTATION OF DENMARK

THE PERMANENT REPRESENTATION OF DENMARK THE PERMANENT REPRESENTATION OF DENMARK to the European Union Brussels ^ C^jT "' Acx_4 CO European Commission General Secretariat Rue de la Loi 200 1049 Brussels PAR PORTEUR Rue d'arlon 73 B-1040 BruxeUes

More information

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 23.12.2003 COM(2003) 827 final 2003/0326 (CNS) Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Justice in disputes relating to the

More information

RENFORCER LA COHERENCE DE L APPROCHE EUROPEENNE EN MATIERE DE RECOURS COLLECTIF : PROCHAINES ETAPES

RENFORCER LA COHERENCE DE L APPROCHE EUROPEENNE EN MATIERE DE RECOURS COLLECTIF : PROCHAINES ETAPES COMMISSION EUROPÉENNE Secrétariat général SEC(2010) 1192 Bruxelles, le 5 octobre 2010 OJ 1932 RENFORCER LA COHERENCE DE L APPROCHE EUROPEENNE EN MATIERE DE RECOURS COLLECTIF : PROCHAINES ETAPES Note d'information

More information

DIRECTIVE ON ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION FOR CONSUMER DISPUTES AND REGULATION ON ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION FOR CONSUMER DISPUTES

DIRECTIVE ON ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION FOR CONSUMER DISPUTES AND REGULATION ON ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION FOR CONSUMER DISPUTES 3-2013 June, 2013 DIRECTIVE ON ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION FOR CONSUMER DISPUTES AND REGULATION ON ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION FOR CONSUMER DISPUTES June 18, 2013 saw the publication in the Official Journal

More information

Data Protection Bill: Collective Redress

Data Protection Bill: Collective Redress Bill Committee Evidence Data Protection Bill: Collective Redress Which? is the largest consumer organisation in the UK with more than 1.7 million members and supporters. We operate as an independent, a-political,

More information

April 30, The Sections of Antitrust Law and International Law (the Sections ) of the American

April 30, The Sections of Antitrust Law and International Law (the Sections ) of the American COMMENTS OF THE ABA SECTIONS OF ANTITRUST LAW AND INTERNATIONAL LAW TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION STAFF S WORKING DOCUMENT: TOWARDS A COHERENT EUROPEAN APPROACH TO COLLECTIVE REDRESS April 30, 2011 The views

More information

10622/12 LL/mf 1 DG G 3 A

10622/12 LL/mf 1 DG G 3 A COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 31 May 2012 Interinstitutional File: 2011/0373 (COD) 2011/0374 (COD) 10622/12 CONSOM 86 MI 394 JUSTCIV 212 CODEC 1499 NOTE from: Council Secretariat to: Working

More information

Public consultation on a European Labour Authority and a European Social Security Number

Public consultation on a European Labour Authority and a European Social Security Number Contribution ID: d3f2ed27-7404-428b-8e65-fb8da2678bd2 Date: 20/12/2017 10:11:00 Public consultation on a European Labour Authority and a European Social Security Number Fields marked with * are mandatory.

More information

Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 11.4.2018 COM(2018) 184 final 2018/0089 (COD) Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on representative actions for the protection of the collective

More information

Fact Sheet Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms

Fact Sheet Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms www.iprhelpdesk.eu European IPR Helpdesk Fact Sheet Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms This fact sheet has been developed in cooperation with Update - November 2014 1 Introduction... 1 1 IP

More information

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION. 27th ANNUAL REPORT ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW (2009) SEC(2010) 1143 SEC(2010) 1144

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION. 27th ANNUAL REPORT ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW (2009) SEC(2010) 1143 SEC(2010) 1144 EN EN EN EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 1.10.2010 COM(2010) 538 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 27th ANNUAL REPORT ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF EU LAW (2009) SEC(2010) 1143 SEC(2010) 1144 EN EN REPORT

More information

Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules

Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules European Commission DG Competition Unit A 5 Damages for breach of the antitrust rules B-1049 Brussels Stockholm, 14 July 2008 Damages Actions for Breach of the EC Antitrust Rules White Paper COM(2008)

More information

Submitted by CMS. 30 April 2011

Submitted by CMS. 30 April 2011 Public Public Consultation Consultation Towards Towards a Coherent a Coherent European European Approach Approach to Collective to Collective Redress Redress Submitted by CMS 30 April 2011 CMS aims to

More information

Public consultation on a European Labour Authority and a European Social Security Number

Public consultation on a European Labour Authority and a European Social Security Number Public consultation on a European Labour Authority and a European Social Security Number 1. About you You are replying: As an individual In your professional capacity (including self-employed) or on behalf

More information

PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE ON REPRESENTATIVE

PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE ON REPRESENTATIVE The Consumer Voice in Europe PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE ON REPRESENTATIVE ACTIONS BEUC position paper Contact: Augusta Maciulevičiūtė consumer-redress@beuc.eu BUREAU EUROPEEN DES UNIONS DE CONSOMMATEURS

More information

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 19 March /08 PI 14

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 19 March /08 PI 14 COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 19 March 2008 7728/08 PI 14 WORKING DOCUMT from: Presidency to: Working Party on Intellectual Property (Patents) No. prev. doc. : 7001/08 PI 10 Subject : European

More information

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 15.3.2005 COM(2005) 87 final 2005/0020 (COD) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing a European Small Claims

More information

ECN RECOMMENDATION ON COMMITMENT PROCEDURES

ECN RECOMMENDATION ON COMMITMENT PROCEDURES ECN RECOMMENDATION ON COMMITMENT PROCEDURES By the present Recommendation the ECN Competition Authorities (the Authorities) express their common views on the need for making commitments binding and enforceable

More information

Elements of a Civil Claim

Elements of a Civil Claim Elements of a Civil Claim This presentation provides an overview of the elements of a civil claim, with particular reference to construction claims, and looks at each dispute resolution option in the context

More information

Comments on the proposal for a directive on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers

Comments on the proposal for a directive on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers Comments on the proposal for a directive on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers I. Introduction On April 11, 2018, the European Commission presented the New

More information

Amended proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

Amended proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 11.10.2011 COM(2011) 633 final 2008/0256 (COD) Amended proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL Amending Directive 2001/83/EC, as regards information

More information

Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL EUROPEAN COMMISSION Strasbourg, 11.6.2013 COM(2013) 404 final 2013/0185 (COD) C7-0170/13 Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on certain rules governing actions for damages

More information

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 14.12.2010 SEC(2010) 1548 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMT Accompanying document to the Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMT

More information

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 18.7.2003 COM(2003) 443 final 2003/0162 (COD) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on cooperation between national authorities

More information

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL Council of the European Union General Secretariat Brussels, 4 January 2016 (OR. en) Interinstitutional File: 2013/0402 (COD) SN 1019/16 LIMITE WORKING DOCUMENT From: Presidency No. Cion doc.: 17392/13

More information

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 78(3) thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 78(3) thereof, L 239/146 COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2015/1523 of 14 September 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and of Greece THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN

More information

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 78(3) thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 78(3) thereof, L 248/80 COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2015/1601 of 22 September 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

More information

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL EN EN EN EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 11.4.2011 COM(2011) 175 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL On the implementation since 2007 of the Council Framework Decision

More information

EN CD/15/R2 Original: English Adopted

EN CD/15/R2 Original: English Adopted EN CD/15/R2 Original: English Adopted COUNCIL OF DELEGATES OF THE INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS AND RED CRESCENT MOVEMENT Geneva, Switzerland 7 December 2015 International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement

More information

Common law reasoning and institutions Civil and Criminal Procedure (England and Wales) Litigation U.S.

Common law reasoning and institutions Civil and Criminal Procedure (England and Wales) Litigation U.S. Litigation U.S. Just Legal Services - Scuola di Formazione Legale Via Laghetto, 3 20122 Milano Comparing England and Wales and the U.S. Just Legal Services - Scuola di Formazione Legale Via Laghetto, 3

More information

A Model for Dispute Resolution in Europe

A Model for Dispute Resolution in Europe European Civil Justice Systems A Model for Dispute Resolution in Europe Christopher Hodges The Foundation for Law, Justice and Society in collaboration with The Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, University

More information

11161/15 WST/NC/kp DGD 1

11161/15 WST/NC/kp DGD 1 Council of the European Union Brussels, 3 September 2015 (OR. en) Interinstitutional File: 2015/0125 (NLE) 11161/15 ASIM 67 LEGISLATIVE ACTS AND OTHER INSTRUMTS Subject: COUNCIL DECISION establishing provisional

More information

Towards a Uniform European Approach to Collective Redress?

Towards a Uniform European Approach to Collective Redress? Towards a Uniform European Approach to Collective Redress? By Marc Shelley Partner Shook, Hardy & Bacon The story of European class actions has been unfolding for many years and the ending is still to

More information

European Commission Questionnaire on the Patent System in Europe

European Commission Questionnaire on the Patent System in Europe European Commission Questionnaire on the Patent System in Europe Response by: Eli Lilly and Company Contact: Mr I J Hiscock Director - European Patent Operations Eli Lilly and Company Limited Lilly Research

More information

Trailblazing Competition Law: Private Enforcement in Europe on the move Christopher Rother, Managing Partner Hausfeld Rechtsanwälte

Trailblazing Competition Law: Private Enforcement in Europe on the move Christopher Rother, Managing Partner Hausfeld Rechtsanwälte Trailblazing Competition Law: Private Enforcement in Europe on the move Christopher Rother, Managing Partner Hausfeld Rechtsanwälte December, 2016 Introduction Structure of the Presentation 1. Private

More information

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 15 April /11 Interinstitutional File: 2011/0094 (CNS) PI 32 PROPOSAL

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 15 April /11 Interinstitutional File: 2011/0094 (CNS) PI 32 PROPOSAL COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 15 April 2011 9226/11 Interinstitutional File: 2011/0094 (CNS) PI 32 PROPOSAL from: Commission dated: 15 April 2011 No Cion doc.: COM(2011) 216 final Subject: Proposal

More information

Consultation on Remedies in Public Procurement

Consultation on Remedies in Public Procurement 1 of 10 20/07/2015 16:09 Case Id: b34fff26-cd71-4b22-95b2-c0a7c38a00be Consultation on Remedies in Public Procurement Fields marked with * are mandatory. There are two Directives laying down remedies in

More information

EUROPEAN MODEL COMPANY ACT (EMCA) CHAPTER 3 REGISTRATION AND THE ROLE OF THE REGISTRAR

EUROPEAN MODEL COMPANY ACT (EMCA) CHAPTER 3 REGISTRATION AND THE ROLE OF THE REGISTRAR EUROPEAN MODEL COMPANY ACT (EMCA) CHAPTER 3 REGISTRATION AND THE ROLE OF THE REGISTRAR Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 8 Section 9 Section 10 Section 11 Section

More information

Common ground in European Dismissal Law

Common ground in European Dismissal Law Keynote Paper on the occasion of the 4 th Annual Legal Seminar European Labour Law Network 24 + 25 November 2011 Protection Against Dismissal in Europe Basic Features and Current Trends Common ground in

More information

PROVISIONAL AGREEMENT RESULTING FROM INTERINSTITUTIONAL NEGOTIATIONS

PROVISIONAL AGREEMENT RESULTING FROM INTERINSTITUTIONAL NEGOTIATIONS European Parliament 2014-2019 Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection 11.7.2017 PROVISIONAL AGREEMT RESULTING FROM INTERINSTITUTIONAL NEGOTIATIONS Subject: Proposal for a regulation of

More information

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL EN EN EN COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, COM(2008) XXXX 2008/xxxx (COD) Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the application of the principle of equal

More information

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 23.2.2012 COM(2012) 71 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the application of Directive

More information

Council Decision of 10 March 2011 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection (2011/167/EU)

Council Decision of 10 March 2011 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection (2011/167/EU) COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 23 June 2011 Interinstitutional File: 2011/0093 (COD) 2011/0094 (CNS) 11328/11 PI 67 CODEC 995 NOTE from: Presidency to: Council No. prev. doc.: 10573/11 PI 52 CODEC

More information

Antitrust: policy paper on compensating consumer and business victims of competition breaches frequently asked questions (see also IP/08/515)

Antitrust: policy paper on compensating consumer and business victims of competition breaches frequently asked questions (see also IP/08/515) MEMO/08/216 Brussels, 3 rd April 2008 Antitrust: policy paper on compensating consumer and business victims of competition breaches frequently asked questions (see also IP/08/515) What is the White Paper

More information

Private sector-led challenges to anti-competitive behaviour. Growth and fairness: private sector-led challenges to anti-competitive behaviour

Private sector-led challenges to anti-competitive behaviour. Growth and fairness: private sector-led challenges to anti-competitive behaviour Agenda Advancing economics in business Private sector-led challenges to anti-competitive behaviour Growth and fairness: private sector-led challenges to anti-competitive behaviour The UK government is

More information

QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE PATENT SYSTEM IN EUROPE. 1.1 Do you agree that these are the basic features required of the patent system?

QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE PATENT SYSTEM IN EUROPE. 1.1 Do you agree that these are the basic features required of the patent system? QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE PATENT SYSTEM IN EUROPE Section 1 1.1 Do you agree that these are the basic features required of the patent system? - We agree that clear substantive rules on patentability should

More information

Council Decision of 10 March 2011 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection (2011/167/EU)

Council Decision of 10 March 2011 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection (2011/167/EU) COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 26 May 2011 Interinstitutional File: 2011/0093 (COD) 2011/0094 (CNS) 10629/11 PI 53 CODEC 891 NOTE from: Presidency to: Council No. prev. doc.: 10401/11 PI 49 CODEC

More information

The End of the Multi-fiber Arrangement on January 1, 2005

The End of the Multi-fiber Arrangement on January 1, 2005 On January 1 2005, the World Trade Organization agreement on textiles and clothing expired. All WTO members have unrestricted access to the American and European markets for their textiles exports. The

More information

Strategic Considerations for Business Lawyers: Resolving Disputes through ADR or Litigation

Strategic Considerations for Business Lawyers: Resolving Disputes through ADR or Litigation Strategic Considerations for Business Lawyers: Resolving Disputes through ADR or Litigation August 22, 2016 This Note illustrates the importance of making well-informed, strategy decisions before deciding

More information

EUROPEAN FUND FOR THE INTEGRATION OF THIRD-COUNTRY NATIONALS

EUROPEAN FUND FOR THE INTEGRATION OF THIRD-COUNTRY NATIONALS EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL JUSTICE, FREEDOM AND SECURITY ii Directorate B Unit B/4: Financial solidarity for asylum, immigration and borders EUROPEAN FUND FOR THE INTEGRATION OF THIRD-COUNTRY

More information

Executive summary and overview of the national report for Malta

Executive summary and overview of the national report for Malta Executive summary and overview of the national report for Malta Section I Summary of findings The private enforcement of competition rules through actions for damages by third parties harmed by anticompetitive

More information

This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents

This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents 1992L0013 EN 09.01.2008 004.001 1 This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents B COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992

More information

PUBLIC LIMITE EN COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 1 December /11 LIMITE PI 170 COUR 72 NOTE

PUBLIC LIMITE EN COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 1 December /11 LIMITE PI 170 COUR 72 NOTE Conseil UE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION PUBLIC Brussels, 1 December 2011 17580/11 LIMITE PI 170 COUR 72 NOTE from: to: No. prev. doc.: Subject: Presidency Permanent Representatives Committee (Part 1)

More information

Independent Press Standards Organisation Arbitration Scheme Consultation Paper

Independent Press Standards Organisation Arbitration Scheme Consultation Paper Independent Press Standards Organisation Arbitration Scheme Consultation Paper A consultation regarding the implementation of an arbitration scheme to aid access to justice and reduce costs relating to

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MERCED. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Information Guide

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MERCED. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Information Guide SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MERCED Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Information Guide Adapted by permission from the Administrative Office of the Courts publication: Alternative Dispute

More information

Private Actions for Infringement of Competition Laws in the EU: An Ongoing Project

Private Actions for Infringement of Competition Laws in the EU: An Ongoing Project Private Actions for Infringement of Competition Laws in the EU: An Ongoing Project Dr Stanley Wong, StanleyWongGlobal (of the Bars of British Columbia and Ontario) Innovation and Competition Policy in

More information

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 23.3.2011 COM(2011) 138 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

More information

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 25.5.2016 COM(2016) 283 final 2016/0148 (COD) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on cooperation between national authorities responsible

More information

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS EN EN EN EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 21.12.2010 COM(2010) 802 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF

More information

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 19.11.2013 COM(2013) 794 final 2013/0403 (COD) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European

More information

The Netherlands as efficient jurisdiction for cartel damages claim litigation. Louis Berger. Hans Bousie

The Netherlands as efficient jurisdiction for cartel damages claim litigation. Louis Berger. Hans Bousie The Netherlands as efficient jurisdiction for cartel damages claim litigation Recent developments may necessitate different choices Under European Union law, the courts of any one of its Member States

More information

10291/18 VK/PL/mz 1 DG B 1C

10291/18 VK/PL/mz 1 DG B 1C Council of the European Union Brussels, 25 June 2018 (OR. en) Interinstitutional File: 2017/0085 (COD) 10291/18 OUTCOME OF PROCEEDINGS From: To: General Secretariat of the Council Delegations No. prev.

More information

Call for evidence: EEA workers in the UK labour market

Call for evidence: EEA workers in the UK labour market Migration Advisory Committee 2 nd Floor Peel Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4 DF 24 October 2017 Dear Colleague Call for evidence: EEA workers in the UK labour market The Royal Pharmaceutical Society

More information

8118/16 SH/NC/ra DGD 2

8118/16 SH/NC/ra DGD 2 Council of the European Union Brussels, 30 May 2016 (OR. en) Interinstitutional File: 2016/0060 (CNS) 8118/16 JUSTCIV 71 LEGISLATIVE ACTS AND OTHER INSTRUMTS Subject: COUNCIL REGULATION implementing enhanced

More information

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 28 April /08 Interinstitutional File: 2000/0177 (CNS) PI 22

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 28 April /08 Interinstitutional File: 2000/0177 (CNS) PI 22 COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 28 April 2008 8928/08 Interinstitutional File: 2000/0177 (CNS) PI 22 WORKING DOCUMT from: Presidency to: Working Party on Intellectual Property (Patents) No. prev.

More information

Report on the results of the open consultation. Green Paper on the role of civil society in drugs policy in the European Union (COM(2006) 316 final)

Report on the results of the open consultation. Green Paper on the role of civil society in drugs policy in the European Union (COM(2006) 316 final) Report on the results of the open consultation Green Paper on the role of civil society in drugs policy in the European Union (COM(2006) 316 final) Brussels, 18 April 2007 The Commission Green Paper (GP)

More information

DHS Patentanwaltsgesellschaft mbh Munich. RECENT RULINGS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE ON SPCs

DHS Patentanwaltsgesellschaft mbh Munich. RECENT RULINGS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE ON SPCs Dr. Stefan Danner December 2011 German and European Patent Attorney danner@dhs-patent.de RECENT RULINGS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE ON SPCs In the last few months, the European Court of Justice (ECJ)

More information

Out-of-court dispute settlement systems for e-commerce

Out-of-court dispute settlement systems for e-commerce 1 Out-of-court dispute settlement systems for e-commerce Report on legal issues Part II: The Protection of the Recipient 29 th May 2000 2 Title: Out-of-court dispute settlement systems for e- commerce.

More information

EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 12 December 2012 (OR. en) 2011/0093 (COD) PE-CONS 72/11 PI 180 CODEC 2344 OC 70

EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 12 December 2012 (OR. en) 2011/0093 (COD) PE-CONS 72/11 PI 180 CODEC 2344 OC 70 EUROPEAN UNION THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMT THE COUNCIL Brussels, 12 December 2012 (OR. en) 2011/0093 (COD) PE-CONS 72/11 PI 180 CODEC 2344 OC 70 LEGISLATIVE ACTS AND OTHER INSTRUMTS Subject: REGULATION OF THE

More information

The German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR)

The German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR) The German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR) The Secretary General Deutsche Vereinigung für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht e.v. Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 11. RheinAtrium.

More information

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 20.7.2012 COM(2012) 407 final 2012/0199 (COD) Proposal for a DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCILestablishing a Union action for the European Capitals of

More information

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL EN EN EN EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 14.12.2010 COM(2010) 748 final 2010/0383 (COD) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement

More information

Industrial Relations in Europe 2010 report

Industrial Relations in Europe 2010 report MEMO/11/134 Brussels, 3 March 2011 Industrial Relations in Europe 2010 report What is the 'Industrial Relations in Europe' report? The Industrial Relations in Europe report provides an overview of major

More information

PROPOSALS FOR CREATING UNITARY PATENT PROTECTION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

PROPOSALS FOR CREATING UNITARY PATENT PROTECTION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION PROPOSALS FOR CREATING UNITARY PATENT PROTECTION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION The idea of a Community Patent, a single patent that can be enforced throughout the European Union (EU), is hardly new. The original

More information

Robert I, Duke of Normandy. 22 June July 1035

Robert I, Duke of Normandy. 22 June July 1035 Robert I, Duke of Normandy 22 June 1000 1 3 July 1035 Speak French here! TORQUE WRENCHES TORTURE And yay how he strucketh me upon the bodkin with great force Ye Olde Medieval Courte Speaketh French,

More information

The Enforcement Guide

The Enforcement Guide Contents list The Enforcement Guide 1. Introduction Overview 2. The 's approach to enforcement 3. Use of information gathering and investigation powers 4. Conduct of investigations 5. Settlement 6. Publicity

More information

7 Problems Surrounding Intellectual Property Rights under Private International Law

7 Problems Surrounding Intellectual Property Rights under Private International Law 7 Problems Surrounding Intellectual Property Rights under Private International Law Despite the prospected increase in intellectual property (IP) disputes beyond national borders, there are no established

More information

Private Enforcement of Competition Law Trials and Tribulations

Private Enforcement of Competition Law Trials and Tribulations Private Enforcement of Competition Law Trials and Tribulations November 3 2005 Private Enforcement in the European Union Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes has undertaken to publish a green paper on

More information

Recent Developments in EU Public Law. Scottish Public Law Group Annual Summer Conference 9 June 2014

Recent Developments in EU Public Law. Scottish Public Law Group Annual Summer Conference 9 June 2014 Recent Developments in EU Public Law Scottish Public Law Group Annual Summer Conference 9 June 2014 Presentation overview 1. Application and Interpretation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights When

More information

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 20.9.2007 COM(2007) 542 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE

More information

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 13.10.2015 COM(2015) 495 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the application of Regulation

More information

EU REGULATION OF CONSUMER SALES GUARANTEES: The Present Situation and Future Perspectives

EU REGULATION OF CONSUMER SALES GUARANTEES: The Present Situation and Future Perspectives EU REGULATION OF CONSUMER SALES GUARANTEES: The Present Situation and Future Perspectives Aneta Wiewiorowska-Domagalska Readers are reminded that this work is protected by copyright. While they are free

More information

[340] COUNCIL REGULATION 44/2001/EC ( BRUSSELS II )

[340] COUNCIL REGULATION 44/2001/EC ( BRUSSELS II ) [340] COUNCIL REGULATION 44/2001/EC ( BRUSSELS II ) 4. Council Regulation 44/2001/EC of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters

More information

Notice of 16 May 2011 on the Method Relating to the Setting of Financial Penalties

Notice of 16 May 2011 on the Method Relating to the Setting of Financial Penalties RÉPUBLIQUE FRANÇAISE Notice of 16 May 2011 on the Method Relating to the Setting of Financial Penalties I. The legal provisions applicable to the setting of financial penalties 1. Pursuant to Section I

More information

Official Journal of the European Union. (Legislative acts) DIRECTIVES

Official Journal of the European Union. (Legislative acts) DIRECTIVES 5.12.2014 L 349/1 I (Legislative acts) DIRECTIVES DIRECTIVE 2014/104/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law

More information

The Ombudsman's synthesis The European Ombudsman and Citizens' Rights

The Ombudsman's synthesis The European Ombudsman and Citizens' Rights European Ombudsman The Ombudsman's synthesis The European Ombudsman and Citizens' Rights Special Eurobarometer Conducted by TNS Opinion & Social at the request of the European Parliament and the European

More information

Question 1: Do you have any suggestions for further improving citizen's access to

Question 1: Do you have any suggestions for further improving citizen's access to The Architects Registration Board welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Public Consultation on the Professional Qualifications Directive carried out by the European Commission. The Architects Registration

More information

EC consultation Collective Redress

EC consultation Collective Redress EC consultation Collective Redress SEC(2011)173 final: Towards a Coherent European Approach to Collective Redress. Morten Hviid, ESRC Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich UK.

More information

Actions for damages under national law: Achieving compensation through an appropriately balanced system

Actions for damages under national law: Achieving compensation through an appropriately balanced system 31.10.2013 Actions for damages under national law: Achieving compensation through an appropriately balanced system Secretariat Point of Contact: Pierre Bouygues; pierre.bouygues @amchameu.eu; +32 (0)2

More information

Young EPLAW Congress. Bolar provision: a European tour. Brussels, 27 April 2015 Guillaume Bensussan Kathy Osgerby Agathe Michel de Cazotte

Young EPLAW Congress. Bolar provision: a European tour. Brussels, 27 April 2015 Guillaume Bensussan Kathy Osgerby Agathe Michel de Cazotte Young EPLAW Congress Bolar provision: a European tour Brussels, 27 April 2015 Guillaume Bensussan Kathy Osgerby Agathe Michel de Cazotte Introduction Bolar provision: a European tour Part 1 UK A) Recent

More information

About Allen & Overy LLP

About Allen & Overy LLP Allen & Overy LLP's Response to the European Commission Staff Working Document "Towards a coherent European approach to collective redress", SEC (2011) 173 final About Allen & Overy LLP Allen & Overy LLP

More information

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON FREE MOVEMENT OF WORKERS. Brussels, 24 February 2011

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON FREE MOVEMENT OF WORKERS. Brussels, 24 February 2011 EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion Employment and Social Legislation, Social Dialogue Free Movement of Workers, Coordination of Social Security Schemes ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON

More information

Rages, What are the Signs of Practical Progress?

Rages, What are the Signs of Practical Progress? 227 Private Antitrust Damages in Europe: As the Policy Debate Rages, What are the Signs of Practical Progress? John Pheasant* European Commission s initiative In December 2005, the European Commission

More information

Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) on the translation arrangements for the European Union patent {SEC(2010) 796} {SEC(2010) 797}

Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) on the translation arrangements for the European Union patent {SEC(2010) 796} {SEC(2010) 797} EN EN EN EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, COM(2010) XXX 2010/xxxx (CNS) Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) on the translation arrangements for the European Union patent {SEC(2010) 796} {SEC(2010) 797}

More information