Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-30-Speech-2-287"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040330.11.2-287"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I cannot help thinking that this is also a matter of the status of environmental issues. Just imagine replacing the words 'environmental legislation' with 'economic legislation' or anything else, and you would consider it absolutely natural that you have access to justice; that you allow these groups access to justice or a say on these issues. Most of what we think would come naturally will also have to be introduced for the environmental issues. That is just one reflection.
Let me begin by commenting firstly on the proposed directive on access to justice. Without a common framework with harmonised requirements, there is no means of guaranteeing that the requirements of the Århus Convention are met throughout the Union. We have signed the Århus Convention and that is the starting point.
The Commission proposes to give legal standing to recognised environmental organisations. That follows from how environmental issues are defined here: what the Århus Convention is all about and what access to justice is all about in this field. It is restricted to environmental issues and it is clearly defined. This is fully in line with a Convention that gives a prominent position to environmental NGOs as advocating the interests of the environment, because on the environment we do not have a vested interest. We will have to heed those voices that take on the concerns of the environment. It is also done with respect for the principle of subsidiarity, as Member States are free to provide for access to justice for a larger public. Furthermore, it is left largely to Member States to develop the details of the framework. Much as I respect Mrs Thors, it is not always the fishermen who represent the environmental concerns when it comes to protecting the Baltic Sea, so perhaps that is not the best of examples.
As regards the amendments put forward, the Commission can accept those that reinforce the principles of the proposal, in particular where reference is made to national legislation granting wider access to justice. A considerable number of amendments, however, are not acceptable to the Commission. Even though I understand and sympathise with your desire to maximise the benefits to the public of this proposal, I consider that amendments which propose expanding legal standing to organisations which are not primarily or regularly working in the field of the environment add requirements which are arbitrary or imprecise. It is also important to provide as much legal clarity as possible.
Other amendments weaken the scope of the proposal as they modify procedural aspects, such as the request for internal review which, in the Commission’s view, is important in order to enable the administration to reassess its action before transferring the case to the courts. In our view, the proposal is well balanced. It takes on board the obligations arising from the Århus Convention, whilst leaving to the Member States the necessary degree of flexibility which will enable them to implement the legislation effectively.
I turn to the proposal for a regulation implementing Århus within the institutions. I would like to emphasise that our aim is the full application of the three pillars of the Århus Convention at Community level. These requirements proposed under the regulation cover not only Community institutions but all bodies that exercise public functions under the Treaties, also comprising the agencies, offices or bodies such as the European Investment Bank, to the extent that their activities are relevant to environmental matters as dealt with by the Convention.
Here again, the Commission’s proposal has made use of the flexibility parties are allowed under the Århus Convention, notably in terms of organising the public participation processes and establishing criteria for access to justice in case of impairments of environmental law. While keeping in line with the Århus Convention, it strived to interfere as little as possible with rules and procedures already established and operating. In particular, interference with the Treaty provisions as regards access to the European Court of Justice for individuals needs to be avoided.
In this vein, the Commission considers as problematic those amendments that would aim to deviate from the regime of exceptions set up under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on access to documents. Neither can the Commission accept amendments that result in being overly prescriptive on the arrangements for public participation and in enlarging the access to justice provisions to complaints by individual members of the public. Those amendments risk interfering with the provisions of the EC Treaty in this respect.
I will hand over to the secretariat the Commission’s position on specific amendments. Once again, I thank you for the debate."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples