Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-30-Speech-2-286"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040330.11.2-286"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, in all the years that Parliament and the Council have been adopting legislation together, it has very rarely happened that a proposal put forward by the European Commission is rejected on account of the principle of subsidiarity. I, and with me a large number of fellow MEPs, find that the proposal now being discussed – and I am talking about access to justice, the Schörling report – should suffer this fate.
This is because it is extremely unusual for the European Commission to submit a proposal to implement the Aarhus Convention in European Community law by way of a directive when all Member States and nine of the ten accession countries have signed this Convention, and some have even ratified it. The instrument of a directive to force Member States to include the Aarhus Convention in their national legislation is therefore disproportionate. Furthermore, this proposal is based on Article 175, although it is in actual fact about the harmonisation of the Member States’ legal systems. This definitely cannot be done on the basis of Article 175. The wording of the proposal is also different from the wording of the Aarhus Convention, and this will naturally cause major interpretation problems.
I am naturally in favour of the Aarhus Convention, but I cannot but conclude that the Member States should introduce it themselves. They have undertaken to do so. The Commission’s present proposal is therefore both technically incorrect and superfluous. In conclusion, I would like to say that my group has very serious objections to this proposal. We have therefore submitted an amendment to reject the proposal, and I call on fellow MEPs to support this. An amendment of this kind in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy was rejected with a majority of one vote, and that was not surprising, since just before the meeting of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy it was still being assumed that I would not declare this amendment acceptable. Nobody had therefore prepared for the vote properly. I think that we should be given the opportunity to do this again tomorrow."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples