Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-30-Speech-2-283"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2004-03-30"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Århus Convention2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20040330.11.2-283"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2004-03-30-Speech-2-2842
lpv:speaker	lp:Jonas Sjöstedt2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Vänsterpartiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; CONT (2002-03-21--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 substitute; Delegation to the European Economic Area Joint Parliamentary Committee (EEA) (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Lithuania Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; EUL/NGL (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the Århus Convention is very important. In practice, it reinforces the transparency of decisions in environmental matters directly affecting citizens and the latter’s chances of actually even influencing these decisions. I shall begin by commenting on the aspect of its implementation that concerns Mrs Schörling’s report on justice in environmental matters. A proposal to reject the report in its present form has been presented; Mrs Thors, among others, spoke of this just now. I myself have some difficulty in understanding the reason for rejecting this report. The fact is that the European Union has signed this Convention. It is reasonable, therefore, for it to have a duty to use its regulatory framework to ensure that this Convention is also implemented. Surely this is a reasonable consequence of signing it. I believe that this will gain particular importance when the Union is enlarged by ten new members. The aim is to involve the new Member States so that, together with us, they meet the stipulations of this Convention. Reading the report, it is also perfectly clear that it does not prevent any country from having more progressive legislation. Each country is free to go further, to increase the rights in other areas. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy makes this clear in Amendments Nos 4 and 5. There is a reason for the report applying in the field of the environment, in particular. This is the part of EU law with perhaps the poorest levels of compliance, judging by the number of Court cases. In my opinion, the draft adopted by the Committee on the Environment could be improved in a couple of respects. Firstly, it should be extended to cover all decisions with an environmental impact, not just those decisions that are taken on the basis of Article 175 of the Treaty. Secondly, it is important not to stipulate a detailed definition of the term ‘environmental organisation’. It can hardly be the EU’s job to do this. It is also important not to prescribe a restriction on who is granted the opportunity of bringing legal proceedings. I shall devote the last seconds of my speaking time to Mrs Korhola’s report. It is important that this report cover as large a part of the legislation as possible. It is important that its scope also cover institutions such as the European Investment Bank, a major financial player, so that they have to comply with the obligations laid down in the report. I also think that it is very important that the public be given a partisan interest, so that it is covered by this regulatory framework."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph