Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-03-Speech-1-109"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000703.8.1-109"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, while I have respect for Mrs Paciotti, I must begin by pointing out the ambiguity of her words.
I must point out that the United States have at least 25 years of experience in this type of system, which supports the idea that this can work and that it is going to work. And it
going to work.
With regard to appeals and damages, you, who are a great legal expert, know that an institution can only be analysed in context. Analyse it, therefore, within the context of the United States’ legal and judicial system and the conclusion will be completely different to the one you have reached. The majority, not all, but the majority, of these rights involve legal redress, in the last instance, after having been subject to a complaint to the competent governmental body.
And neither does this rule out legal proceedings. This is because American legislation, in relation to economic damages, does not consider moral damages and we cannot demand that they change their legislation.
Lastly, cancellation. This goes against the principles established by the OECD in 1980.
I will end, Mr President. I hope that tomorrow this House will support this position which, as I have said, is ultimately in the interest of the citizens of Europe.
Clearly, what you are proposing is not a “yes, but”, as you have been arguing, but rather a “no, unless” and Parliament should be aware of this. It is a “no, unless”, as you have pointed out correctly, in the event that the system is not operative before the judgement on adequacy is confirmed, if these amendments regarding compensation for moral damage or damage to property are implemented and if we do not establish a right to cancellation or a personal right to judicial claim.
In this light, I would argue, and I hope that the majority of Parliament will vote likewise by means of the amendments presented by my group and others, for a “yes”, but on the strict condition that we see realism, respect for the law, respect for institutional balance, but above all, Mr President, respect for the citizens and their interests.
The opposing position is unrealistic. It is unrealistic since the negotiation has been satisfactory, given the context, the adversary, or opposing party, and the legal context, which I will return to.
I am talking about a serious interinstitutional problem, since this Parliament is not undergoing a codecision procedure, it is not tabling amendments. We do not have that option. What we have is a power granted to the Commission and certain Member States who have unanimously backed this position.
What is our intention? It is to safeguard our responsibility, as established in the very ambiguous Amendment No 6. Because, Mrs Paciotti, it is our directive, we voted for it. We did not establish a criterion of equivalence, but rather a criterion of adequacy, and we established that the Commission was responsible for assessing that criterion of adequacy and a committee of the Member States was established which has unanimously adopted this position.
Mrs Paciotti, if we want to change, let us change the directive, but let us not try, through this kind of subterfuge, which is totally against the law, to achieve a situation which will not benefit the citizens, because if these were the only criticisms made, I would support you. At least, I would support you if the directive were reformed. But you would have my support, anyway.
However, it does not benefit the citizens. You say that information can currently be provided by means of a contract. It is not realistic, Mrs Paciotti, you know it is not realistic. At the moment, the information is circulating without any guarantee.
Let us turn now to the Safe Harbour. To say that the Safe Harbour must be operative before we pass judgement on its adequacy will lead to its collapse. This is because no company is going to accept its implications in terms of investment and change, unless it knows that it will be guaranteed the possibility of having access to the free circulation of information."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"is"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples