Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-19-Speech-5-059"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000519.3.5-059"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – I would like to express my sincere thanks for the interest you have shown in the proposal for the Council regulation in question. As you know, the aim of the regulation is to implement at Community level a very important NAFO scheme intended to counteract non-contracting party activities which risk undermining the effectiveness of NAFO conservation measures. In this context, I should stress that the Community, as a contracting party to NAFO, has every interest in measures that help to resolve problems caused by states which do not discharge their cooperation and conservation obligations under international law.
In respect of the proposed amendments, I should stress the following. Amendment No 1 does not seem to be necessary. In fact, recital 3 of the version proposed by the Commission is correct because we are actually dealing with the practice of using non-contracting party vessels. What is more, this wording is drawn from the language used in other legal texts, for instance the Council decision concerning the approval by the Community of the FAO compliance agreement and the Council regulation laying down certain control measures in respect of vessels flying the flag of non-contracting parties to the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources.
Amendment No 2 is relevant and will be taken on board. Amendment No 3 is not acceptable to the Commission. There is no need to impose an obligation on individual vessels. If it merely involves spelling out a faculty for individual vessels, there is no need to regulate. Furthermore, the terms "proceed to a formal sighting" can be construed as an obligation for the Community inspection vessel to direct itself towards non-contracting party vessels in order to make a sighting formal. Such an obligation would divert the inspection vessel from the performance of its existing tasks, which is certainly not acceptable.
I hope that what I have had to say has contributed to a better understanding and thank you again for the time and effort you have put into this proposal."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples