Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-16-Speech-2-125"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"1999-11-16"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Judicial cooperation2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.19991116.7.2-125"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:1999-11-16-Speech-2-1262
lpv:speaker	lp:Véronique Mathieu Houillon2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; BUDG (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with Canada (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; EDD (1999-07-20--2001-07-04)3 member; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; PETI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Chasse, Pêche, Nature, Traditions (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, regarding Mrs Gebhardt’s report, I have no doubts as to the good intentions of our rapporteurs and I share their concern to reinforce the legal security of people involved in matrimonial cases which are as delicate as they are painful for the parties concerned. But, since our objective is to contribute to an improvement, I wish to draw your attention to the draft amendment to Recital 10, which I consider problematic. Is it proper to entrust the task of defining the notion of parental responsibility to the Court of Justice, whereas the proposal for a Regulation envisaged that reference would be made to the national law of the Member State concerned? Would it be an easy matter for the Court of Justice, to provide a definition of the notion of parental responsibility in isolation without the existence of a common family law for marital cases, which is neither desirable, nor envisaged at the present time? My fear is that with this amendment, the application of this text, whose aim is to strengthen legal security, may create vagueness, which is harmful. Furthermore, attributing this new area of competence to the Court of Justice would surely increase the Court’s caseload, which is already excessive. The rapporteurs themselves note the very marked differences between Member States as regards private law, thus explaining the serious reservations expressed within the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. I would suggest that the rapporteurs should be satisfied with resorting to a Community legal instrument without seeking to harmonise the fundamental legal concepts. If these amendments were to be adopted, it would be difficult for me to support this proposal."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph