Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-08-Speech-1-093"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020408.7.1-093"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are numerous European directives and regulations that aim to protect the very many diverse aspects of the environment. We all know, however, that a number of these texts are ‘dead letters’ due to a lack of effective penalties.
The general public believes that, most of the time, the use of the polluter pays principle to impose financial or material sanctions is insufficient and it is all too aware that these penalties are a poor deterrent given the enormous profits which can be made from the activities that cause the greatest amount of pollution.
We also know that some environmental damage is completely irreversible and cannot be made good. These considerations therefore justify the adoption by the Member States of provisions to penalise non-observance of European environmental requirements through criminal law. That is why – together with my fellow European Socialists – I am fully supporting the Commission’s initiative.
However, we must not underestimate the main difficulty that we must face here, in other words, the problem of the legal basis. For my part, I support the point of view that this matter falls squarely within the Union’s areas of competence under the first pillar and therefore requires the adoption of a framework directive endorsed by the House.
This is also the meaning of the recommendation adopted by Parliament in November 2001. It is worth reminding the Council that, had it finalised its draft framework decision under the third pillar, this would have certainly have been against the political will of the European Parliament.
Furthermore – and because we are committed to strengthening environmental legislation by applying effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal sanctions – we must adopt a sound text, which is above all legal argument and which is unlikely to be condemned by the Court of Justice. This means that we must pay particular attention to the subsidiarity principle and the rules on competence that are laid down by the Treaty.
Although the Community has the power to require the Member States to adopt criminal sanctions if substantial Community standards are breached, it does not, however, have the power to define the types and levels of sanctions to be applied. That is why we must show particular care when referring to concepts such as extradition, which specify how serious the offences and sentences are. I am, however, reassured by the wording which was adopted more recently by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten.
By the same token, the Community has no competence to adopt provisions whose efect is to approximate national criminal provisions. Therefore, to mention the concept of incitement – which does not exist in all the Member States’ legislation – is to seek to bring the national provisions closer together, which, in my view, considerably weakens the legal validity of this text.
Aside from these comments, I would like to reiterate my full support for the adoption of this text and congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. We believe that this text sends out a strong political signal in respect of a crime that our fellow citizens regard in an increasingly poor light."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples