Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-04-Speech-3-280"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020904.9.3-280"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, this report has come back to Parliament for second reading. It has already been the subject of frank and, at times, lively debate between those who call for the citizens to be fully entitled to be involved in certain structural policies at the decision-making stage and those who feel that the political, technical and administrative institutions set up to perform the task of decision-making should have a greater degree of competence and autonomy. In its response to first reading, the Council scaled down the rapporteur’s proposals somewhat, appearing to consider them to be too advanced and too open to a form of democratic participation that could slow down the process of drawing up texts or which, as the rapporteur herself said just now, could open the door to exaggerated
authoritarian
or distorted interpretations. In short, the Council intends to confer on the citizens’ organisations a consultative role – an important role but not a decision-making role – giving the legislators elected to take decisions on the basis of the input of civil society sole responsibility for doing so but without rendering it impossible for exceptions to be made.
The rapporteur proposes various forms of legal review where the positions of the citizens and the decisions of the relevant authority do not tally, particularly where the subject involves major issues such as security, the environment and public health. As regards the need to ensure that the Member States have the possibility of exemption from the directive in the event of an emergency, there is a specific amendment providing this loophole with due regard for subsidiarity and for specific environmental conditions or crises.
As far as public participation is concerned, the rapporteur has resurrected a number of amendments already rejected by the Council, clearly hoping that the role of the citizens and their lawfully established organisations in the drawing up of environmental decisions will be reconsidered.
Many amendments were accepted by the Council, and some of them propose again particularly important, not to say essential principles. Here are some of them. Most importantly, there is the principle that the public must be furnished with the necessary information through electronic media providing access to the institutions’ documents. Secondly, the public must receive
information about the right to participate in decision-making in the forms and quantities permitted – we touched on this just now. Thirdly, the public must be entitled to express both minor and far-reaching comments and adopt positions without prejudice to any options. A further obligation is placed upon the competent authorities, and that is to make reasonable efforts – as the document states – to reply to the public individually or collectively, and an obligation is placed upon the Member States too, to adopt practical, tangible measures on the review procedures and to make available to the public all the necessary information on how to obtain access to both administrative and judicial review procedures. This is to make it possible for the citizens to defend any grounds they may have for dissent throughout the judgment process and uphold an opinion which is different from that of the competent authority.
This line of reasoning may, of course, be interpreted in different ways in different countries, depending on the level of democracy permitting public participation and, above all, protecting the organisations through which the public exercises this right of participation. Two things appear to be particularly important: firstly, the provision of access to cooperation and to the drawing up of legislative documents, and secondly, the provision of access to legal review throughout the judgment process in the event of differences. In this way, we are following faithfully the basic philosophy of Voltaire, who said, 'I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. Even if Europe is not improving our knowledge of law, it is, at least, teaching us some philosophy."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples