Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-09-Speech-2-115"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020409.6.2-115"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The conflict between the Commission’s directive and the Council’s framework decision over ‘penalising’ Article 174 of the Treaty gives rise to the question: who does what in Europe? While the Convention is examining the division of competences between the EU and the Member States, this draft text requires Community law to be extended beyond the letter of the Treaties. Until 2004, we should apply a precautionary principle in institutional matters.
Do we need to make environmental crime part of the Community
declaring that we have a better chance of achieving this objective at Union level? Within the framework of the Treaty of Amsterdam, this issue falls under the third pillar (judicial cooperation in criminal matters).
To aim to punish all violations of environmental legislation is an unrealistic objective intended to meet the demands expressed by a few ecological lobbies which are powerful but are not representative.
Furthermore, I do not support the option advocated in the report by Mr Di Lello Finuoli, when he urges the Council to refrain from taking any action on environmental criminal law before the draft Directive on the protection of the environment is adopted.
Each Member State must be able, under its domestic legislation, to define those violations that are set out in the framework decision as criminal violations. It is appropriate to punish some violations, provided that only the most serious are punished and that they are cross-border in nature. This battle must, in the main, be fought at international level."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples