summary | debate | links | contact | word format | pdf format | index
Cross-border legal cases of negligence, defamation, damages over traffic accidents abroad or product liability from cross-border purchases - these are some of the issues affected by a vote in the European Parliament this week.
The aim of the Regulation is to achieve legal clarity where there is a conflict of laws between EU Member States in civil and commercial matters - the Regulation will apply to non-contractual obligations.
MEPs adopted their 1st reading of the so-called Rome II Regulation on Wednesday. It is the first time the European Parliament has acted as co-legislator in the area of private international law. Among the 54 amendments adopted by MEPs this week to the European Commission proposal:
The European Parliament rapporteur Diana Wallis MEP said : « The success of Rome II will now depend on good judicial co-operation, proper use and respect for one another's laws. The record to date is patchy. Courts too often avoid the application of foreign law. This has to be closely monitored if we are to deliver a true area of civil and commercial justice»
Attention now turns to the Council
of Ministers, who must give their views before the proposal can become law -
if the Council does not accept all the amendments adopted this week, the proposal
will return to the European Parliament for a 2nd reading at a later date.
summary | debate | links | contact | word format | pdf format | top | index
summary | debate | links | contact | word format | pdf format | top | index
Diana Wallis MEP (Liberal Democrat, Yorkshire & The Humber), rapporteur.- Mr President, I think this proposal is ground-breaking for Europe, ground-breaking for Parliament... We now have a potential roadmap for litigation and access to justice in the internal market, building on the structures of Brussels I in relation to the jurisdiction of our courts. For Parliament, this is the first time we have acted as a co-legislator in such an area of private international law.
On road traffic accidents and personal injuries in general, we have sent a clear message about the injustice of applying the damages regime of the country of the accident. If I may illustrate this, I have a constituent who had an accident in Spain. He has been offered £4,000 according to Spanish law. It would be £43,000 according to English law and it is in England that he has to live out his life. This problem has to be addressed, if not here, then by further Commission study and proposal.
On defamation, where Parliament was expected to be active, I was grateful for the opinion of my colleagues in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. I personally share their view but have always felt that we would have to go further to respect the media's concerns about freedom of expression.
We now have a compromise which has
wide support across the political groups and, more importantly, across publishing
and the journalistic world. It is unclear whether it will work technically,
but it gives the direction for new discussion in the Commission and the Council.
It indicates what is acceptable in achieving a balance between freedom of expression
and the rights of the victims of defamation.
summary | debate | links | contact | word format | pdf format | top | index
Full text of the debate in the speakers' original language (5 July 2005):
Report by Diana Wallis
MEP:
Text and amendments adopted by Parliament (6 July 2005):
Existing legislation
affected by the proposed new rules:
summary | debate | links | contact | word format | pdf format | top | index