Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-14-Speech-2-316"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-03-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Environmental legislation2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000314.15.2-316"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-03-14-Speech-2-3172
lpv:speaker	lp:Horst Schnellhardt2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (1999-09-14--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the FFH directive is an issue which has concerned us for some time now and we are currently experiencing a few teething problems. However, to begin let me say the following: the FFH directive is an important directive and creates a new climate in Europe for the protection of nature, the environment and birds. I would not want to change or spare anything in achieving this. I also find it encouraging that the Commission is consequently taking care that EU legislation is being implemented. All the same, in the case of the FFH directive the question arises as to whether the legislation which we have adopted is actually implementable and I can see obvious weak points. As I see it, the FFH directive is an instance where the legislation is not matched to the feasibilities of the regions. I see a problem in the various legal interpretations in the Member States due to the partially unclear definitions in the EU legislation, whilst, on the other hand, there is a lack of strong subsidiary aspects and approaches. Revision of the FFH directive, including the current difficulties in implementation, should not, I think be excluded. Alongside this general criticism of the FFH directive, however, I also see a particular problem with the amalgamation of the EU environmental and structural policies. Article 12 of the structural funds regulation adopted on 21 June 1999 provides for the possibility of sanctions in the event of violations in the following areas: implementation of environmental legislation, breaches of public contracts and failure to observe equality between men and women. To date, the Commission has only threatened sanctions in the case of the FFH directive. Does it also intend to initiate sanction mechanisms in the other areas? In my opinion, this is a very problematic course of action. The EU has a quite different means of enforcing sanctions, i.e. the European Court of Justice. The possible cutting or withholding of money from the Structural Fund is a form of sanction whose effect on the regions concerned cannot just be disregarded. What will happen with projects which are already under way and what will happen, above all, in those cases where a region does not receive any money from the Structural Fund? What sanctions will the Commission then impose for non-implementation of EU environment law? That the Commission is also totally unsure is shown by the fact that it initially wanted to include the entire state in the sanctions, then only a region, as you pointed out to Environment Minister Trittin, Commissioner. I would ask that we make this point absolutely clear here."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph