Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-02-25-Speech-3-155"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040225.11.3-155"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I would like to re-emphasise that the Commission very much supports an early agreement on this regulation, except for the change of the legal basis. The Commission can fully support the compromise package negotiated between Council and Parliament. The adoption of this compromise package will enable the Community and the Member States to ratify the Stockholm Convention in good time and a resolute majority tomorrow will send a very clear signal.
On the issue of the legal basis, the provisions on prohibitions and restrictions of intentionally-produced POP chemicals will affect the functioning of the internal market and therefore these measures should be based on Article 95(1) of the Treaty. The fact that these bans or restrictions are introduced in order to protect human health or the environment does not mean that these provisions cannot be adopted on the basis of Article 95.
Article 95(3) states clearly that the Commission may propose legislation concerning health or environmental protection based on Article 95(1) if these measures have any impact on the functioning of the internal market. Thus it is appropriate that the regulation be based on both 175(1) and 95(1). Furthermore, it should be noted that the Commission also proposes to transfer the production and use bans from the POPs Implementation Regulation to the future REACH Regulation on chemicals, which is based on Article 95. If the legal basis were different, this move would have an effect on the option for Member States to adopt more stringent measures. Therefore, the Commission considered that it was more appropriate to base these provisions on Article 95.
Mr Blokland wondered whether the Commission would appeal to the European Court of Justice: I can only draw the House’s attention to the fact that the Commission published a declaration in the Council minutes clarifying its position in that respect.
On the point of waste management, which Mrs Frahm, Mrs García-Orcoyen Tormo and Mrs Doyle mentioned, it is important to note that the amended proposal clearly stipulates that for waste, destruction or irreversible transformation is a main rule, whereas other waste management operations can be allowed only in specific, clearly-defined cases. Especially in regard to the high-content POPs waste, the Commission points out that permanent storage or other operations can only be allowed if destruction of the POP content is not the environmentally-preferable option. This is fully in line with the provisions of the Stockholm Convention. Moreover, the modified provisions lay down additional conditions and a procedure to ensure that the derogation is not misused. On these grounds the Commission can accept the compromise.
I congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Frahm, and Parliament for this very important piece of legislative work."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples