Mr President, Commissioner, we are conducting a debate here today on a balanced strategy for the internal market and legal protection for consumers on the basis of an oral question which deals mainly with the opposite of the principle of the country of origin in the internal market and the principle of the country of destination in consumer protection. Such contractions are unavoidable in oral questions. But I think, and the debate so far has already demonstrated as much, that discussion of these two principles is not getting us anywhere, especially when we are talking about a suitable legal framework for electronic commerce. It is rightly feared, and I acknowledge this, that the possibility for consumers to sue under their national law before the courts in their country of residence may have a hindering or even a deterrent effect on the establishment of electronic commerce. At the same time, however, we also know that this possibility of suing in the national courts is often only theoretical and is rarely enforced. However, we can hardly expect consumers to go to court in the supplier’s country of origin, since suppliers would then establish themselves in the Member States which offered the least consumer protection and had the weakest consumer laws. That will certainly not boost the confidence of consumers which electronic commerce needs if it is to develop. I therefore believe that the new article 15 in the regulation submitted, either as it stands or with its restriction to offline transactions, really helps us. What we need are systems for settling disputes out of court and procedures to deal with small claims quickly. I therefore expressly welcome the measures proposed by the Commission in its communication on the future strategy, especially support for initiatives for online procedures to settle disputes out of court and for a new Green Paper on access to the law and legal redress for consumers. I think, however, that it should be possible to develop secure electronic monetary transactions and remittance systems in conjunction with the European banks and the credit card companies which allow concurrent electronic transactions. Even enhanced cooperation with consumer protection organisations and cross-border authority for these consumer protection organisations may, in the final analysis, be more helpful on a daily basis than a theoretical dispute between the principle of the country of destination and the principle of the country of origin. I should like to expressly emphasise, following the criticism of the Commission’s proposals for the new draft regulation, that I consider the Commission’s approach to be the right one. Article 13 of the convention already regulates the place of jurisdiction for consumers and the majority of legal scholars have already expressed the view that this also applies to online transactions. The Commission is not therefore changing any aspect of the present legal situation. As we all know, Article 95, paragraph 3 requires the Commission to start from a high level of consumer protection for all its proposals. I therefore believe that the Commission has acted rightly with its proposal. We, the Socialist Group, also support the proposals made by Mrs Wallis in the Committee on Legal Affairs; she has proposed a number of amendments to the draft regulation but also insists on supplementing the existing system by introducing additional procedures. Finally, I should like to say on behalf of my Group that we would only consider switching to the principle of the country of origin if the legal protection of consumers is strengthened by additional procedures granting them the possibility of legal protection.

Political group: PSE