Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-23-Speech-2-315"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-09-23"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Transmission of personal data by airlines in the case of transatlantic flights2
dcterms:Language	"it"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030923.10.2-315"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-09-23-Speech-2-3162
lpv:speaker	lp:Marco Cappato2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the United States (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Lista Emma Bonino (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; NA (2001-10-03--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, flexibility is highly appropriate in negotiations but highly inappropriate when it comes to respect for the law. Article 2 of Regulation 22/99 bans the disclosure to third parties which are not party to a transaction of personal information on a passenger without the passenger’s consent. Commissioner, you stated that responsibility for enforcing legislation lies with the Member States. This is true where directives are concerned but not when it comes to regulations. You are vested with all the necessary authority to intervene and ensure that the law is enforced, under Article 11, which states that the Commission, when appealed to or acting on its own initiative, is to instigate proceedings in order to stop all violation of the provisions of the regulation. Do we want to require respect for the law when that would actually be counterproductive? I believe, first and foremost, that where there is a law, it must be respected, and that a condition of any reform - even reform of an international agreement - is compliance with procedure. Commissioner, you would acquire greater clout in international negotiations if the Commission were to demand respect for the law without delay, for it has the power to do so as well as the Member States. The timeframe is not for us to decide: it is – and, in my opinion, should be – the timeframe laid down by Article 232 of the Treaty, which stipulates a period of two months from our request for action. If no action is taken, we have two months in which to appeal to the Court of Justice."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph