Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-15-Speech-3-198"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000315.6.3-198"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"I am afraid that what Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf has said discloses a misunderstanding of the issue. First of all, the agreement that was reached with the Council in relation to the shortening of the prose text is something which will automatically be dealt with in accordance with the agreement as I have identified a moment ago.
Secondly, on the issue relating to comitology, I can only repeat what I said which is that in any basic legal text which authorises the Commission to amend that text by comitology, that text must itself identify what procedure is being adopted. What Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf is suggesting be done in his amendment is to confer a discretion to deal with the issue in each case on a case-by-case basis, so that the text to be amended will refer to Article 17, but within Article 17 there will be a discretion as to whether Article 7 or Article 8 of Decision 1999/468 will apply; this means that somebody – that is the Commission – will have to determine in those circumstances which of the two articles is the appropriate one, depending on whether it is or is not codecision.
I submit that this is inappropriate, because it effectively confers a power on the Commission to make a decision on that issue as it were in its office, rather than enabling the reader to consult the text – the basic text – in any circumstance where the Commission is empowered to amend a provision by comitology, and to refer to that basic text. From that text it will be clear what comitology procedure is the appropriate one to follow: whether it is Article 17 in the version suggested by the Commission which applies to all of the circumstances in this particular directive, or Article 17(a) which incorporates the scrutiny procedure of the comitology, and which is appropriate to the circumstances set out in Article 3 – that is, where there is a further extension of time beyond 31 December 2000 and where the Commission can extend it for a further period as we have discussed. That gives clarity to the situation. It avoids any exercise of discretion by the Commission or anybody else. It leaves it clear to anybody reading the text what the appropriate procedure is that will govern this particular situation.
I regret I cannot make it any clearer and I regret I cannot accede to your request: I would ask you again, in the light of what I have said about making myself available to your committee, to discuss the interaction between 152 and 37, and to give serious consideration to withdrawing this amendment yourself."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples