Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-03-Speech-2-344"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030603.10.2-344"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, first of all, I would like to reply to Mr Hudghton's question on the regional advisory councils. The question whether it is meaningful and necessary, or regarded as necessary, to consult such a body must arise from the given situation. What I drew attention to is this: the basic regulation provides for the option of consulting the advisory councils, and it is therefore not possible to transform this into obligatory consultation in a secondary provision. However, I can solemnly pledge, on the Commission's behalf, that we will always consult the relevant advisory council, if one exists, as a matter of course where there is a regional aspect to a proposal on a region of the sea. After all, we ourselves have an interest in obtaining the greatest possible range of clear and detailed information on the meaningful deployment of technical measures.
As regards Mr Casaca's comments: yes, of course, what was said in the answer to the question continues to apply. However, you do need to consider one thing: you said that the provision of the Accession Treaty automatically continues in force. Perhaps this was not translated quite correctly. This certainly cannot apply, as this provision of the Accession Treaty, as is well known, has already expired. Currently, the situation is this, to be precise: according to the Commission's Legal Service, the legal basis has expired, but legislation is required to repeal the relevant provision of the regulation as well. It does not become invalid of its own accord. However, there is a view in the Council's Legal Service that due to the expiry of the legal basis, this provision of the regulation also forfeits its legal force. There are therefore two conflicting legal opinions here. As would seem logical, I informed you about the Commission's legal opinion in my reply."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples