Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-28-Speech-3-120"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040128.9.3-120"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, no questions have been addressed to the Commission and therefore I can afford to be very brief. I know parliamentary is dear, and therefore I shall use few words.
I should like to say a few things in response to Mrs Schörling on the issue of production methods. I should like to reassure her about the findings of the European Court of Justice. In its ruling of 4 December 2003, the Court confirmed and repeated its finding in the famous Helsinki bus case, namely that a requirement, according to which the energy to be supplied must be produced from renewable sources, is
admissible. The Court added that such an award criterion may be given a high importance, and in this case the relative weight was 45%.
To conclude, and to reassure Mrs Schörling, the judgment confirms that, both under current law and under the joint text, production methods are legitimate award criteria and may be given quite a high weight provided always that the criterion is formulated and applied in such a way as to meet the four requirements set out explicitly in both the Helsinki case and in recital 1 of the joint text.
I should once again like to express the thanks of the Commission that, as one Member said, work on this important file has been concluded within this legislature. I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Zappalà, the shadow-rapporteur, Mrs Cederschiöld, and all who have contributed. I will end by thanking Mr Miller for agreeing, in the end, to support the proposal, even though he voted against it in the Conciliation Committee."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples