Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-03-Speech-3-174"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991103.12.3-174"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, any consideration of this communication by the Commission which we are discussing today should take into account the fact that it is a document which is being presented at the same time that the new Commission is starting its work. This consideration obliges us to highlight its positive aspects and, to a certain extent, avoid any negative comment. It would be unjust, therefore, to describe the document as unambitious, but it would nevertheless have been justifiable to level this criticism at the document if it had been carried out by a Commission which had been in action for longer.
This situation cannot hide the fact however that this is really simply a document of intentions, which we take note of. Meanwhile, we will wait to see whether these intentions become concrete measures, commitments which involve a time scale for their implementation. Then, and only then will we be able to make a more accurate judgement of the Commission’s intentions.
Amongst the aspects which warrant our special approval, is that of protecting consumer interests. If anybody should benefit from the construction of the internal market, it is the consumer, that is, all of the citizens. And in this respect, Commissioner, there is a phrase in the communication which worries us. It says literally that “a more intense trade in goods and services between the Member States could lead to additional risks to the consumer”. This phrase raises the question of the view of consumer protection as an inevitable requirement to impede the free movement of goods, within the meaning of the judgement on Dassonville, Cassis de Dijon etc. In other words it leads us to the principle of mutual recognition, which seems to be very dear to Mr Bolkestein.
I would like my position to be very clear. Mutual recognition is a principle which was important in preventing barriers to the free movement of goods, but it is only partially valid for the construction of the internal market in the absence of harmonised legislation. In order to move forward with the internal market, it will be necessary to insist on the principle of harmonisation. Once legislation in the field of consumer protection is harmonised, I would not be in a position to make such a statement."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples