Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-12-Speech-4-100"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2004-02-12"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Commission strategy on services of general interest (SGI)2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20040212.5.4-100"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2004-02-12-Speech-4-1012
lpv:speaker	lp:Harlem Désir2
lpv:spokenAs	member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with the United States (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Parti socialiste (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; EMPL (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for straying away from your usual subjects in order to take an interest in the problem of services of general interest, which is so important to the citizens of Europe. Following the completion of the consultations on the Green Paper, you reported on the general consensus on the need for clarification and legal clarity, as Mr Langen has just said. However, has any consensus been reached on the need for democratic clarity mentioned by Mrs Flautre? What Parliament was asking for in its resolution – and it did not, in fact, do so unanimously, as I think we would all agree – was that the interpretation of the Court of Justice or the Commission should not be the only prevailing interpretation with regard to clarification on the subject of acceptable state aids, or in order to define the correct interpretation of Article 86. What we need is a debate, in the context of the codecision procedure, which will make it possible to carry out evaluations on a case-by-case basis, since it is true that everyone perceives the evidence as a function of his or her historical or national experience. Thus as far as all services of general interest which are the responsibility of regional or local bodies are concerned, it is clear that it is not the task of the Community to intervene. Do people realise, however, that in other countries, both Member States and third countries, the evidence may show that there are national public services which have operated very efficiently up to now? Moreover, many people would consider, as regards the effects of liberalisation in areas such as rail transport – for example in a country with which you are familiar – or in areas like energy and electricity, that it is not entirely apparent that it is absolutely necessary to make competition rules alone the be all and end all of the system. Nor is it apparent that the calculation of State aids and compensation, whether legitimate or not, should be made the subject of a debate. We believe, therefore, that there should be a democratic debate. Mr Langen and his friends very often quote Article 86(3) in order to prove that something is the responsibility of the Commission, but they fail to mention Article 86(2), which lays down that undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest are subject to the rules on competition, in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them. It is this that is the subject of our discussions among ourselves, but it should also be the subject of a discussion between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, on a sector-by-sector basis."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph