Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-15-Speech-1-055"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010115.5.1-055"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that the directive on the reorganisation of credit institutions is long overdue, which is also why we welcome it. A uniform procedure is at last to be established and there is to be coherence between the reorganisation procedure and the insolvency regulation. We would do well to stress that the provisions on protecting creditors’ rights, in particular, are of crucial importance here, since they establish the principle of providing creditors with information, as well as the conditions governing payments made to them. In this way, all creditors, including those in countries other than the home Member State, are guaranteed equal treatment under the winding up procedure, and a consistent approach.
Although the text in its current form is absolutely excellent, some clarification is needed. Thus, for example, the all-important principle of universality was strengthened by a series of amendments in committee, and several areas of incompatibility with the provisions relating to financial conglomerates, and which could lead to legal uncertainty, were ironed out. You will already have noticed in the course of the debate that we differ on one point, specifically in relation to Amendments Nos 3 and 5. The close correspondence between the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions and insurance companies is not desirable for all aspects. Opinion differs on this because we believe what we are talking about here are different products, and sometimes different markets, and that different products and different markets should be treated differently, and not automatically the same.
The common position is well-balanced to my mind and was improved on, to some extent, by the committee’s amendments and those tabled by the rapporteur, Mrs Peijs, whom I would like to thank. The text ought, therefore, to be adopted without delay and transposed by the Member States. I regret that the dispute in the Council has led to this being delayed by more than a decade. I would point out that the Commission’s first proposal was published as early as 1985 and Parliament’s first reading was held back in 1987. The reason I stress this is because we constantly discuss the balance between the European institutions in our debates – particularly in the wake of the Nice European Council – and in many cases discuss how the procedures ought to be accelerated. This does not just apply to Parliament, which is often the impression given in the public arena, although we would, of course, do well to consolidate and accelerate quite a few procedures of our own too.
But this is not about apportioning blame. However, doubtless the opinion-forming and decision-making process in the European Council offers the best bet for accelerating the procedures between the European institutions. That has been made crystal clear again here.
The Commission proposal is designed to ensure that a credit institution and its branch offices in other Member States can be reorganised and wound up according to the principle of unity and universality. That is guaranteed under this proposed directive."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples