Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-11-Speech-3-216"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-05-11"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Question Time (Council)2
dcterms:Language	"pt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050511.17.3-216"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-05-11-Speech-3-2172
lpv:speaker	lp:Manuel dos Santos2
lpv:spokenAs	vice-president; European Parliament (2005-04-12--2007-01-15)3 substitute; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 substitute; ITRE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 vice-president; Parliament's Bureau (2005-04-12--2007-01-15)3 member; ECON (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; PES (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Partido Socialista (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; CONT (2004-07-21--2005-06-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Maghreb countries and the Arab Maghreb Union (including Libya) (2004-10-28--2007-03-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Question No 20 by Paulo Casaca () One of the two sugar-refining companies in Portugal (which receives support from the Commission) has taken preventive action against the Azores sugarbeet company with a view to banning consignments of sugar from the Azores on the grounds that the latter company's traditional consignments should be calculated on the basis of the average for three years (1989, 1990 and 1991) in which that company shipped no consignments. The Portuguese legal authorities requested a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice, which clarified the matter (C-0282/00). This prompted the Portuguese legal authorities to reject the lawsuit which was being backed by the Commission – a decision which is currently the subject of an appeal. The Commission did not comply with the decision and it has tried every possible means in an attempt to have it reversed. One such means was an alteration to the conditions laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 1600/1992, on the basis of which the Court has not so far found in the Commission's favour. The Regulation has been amended in such a way that the Azores' traditional consignments are now calculated on the basis of the average for 1989, 1990 and 1991 – which is tantamount to banning them. The amendment proposed by the Commission (COM(2004)687 final) to Article 4 of the Regulation is therefore an amendment to a generic rule, the sole purpose of which is to outlaw competition from Azorean sugarbeet. Does the Council not consider the amending of general rules in order to achieve specific aims to be unlawful? Does the Council not think that the Commission's use of its power of initiative in order gain through law-making what it lost at the Luxembourg-based Court of Justice constitutes an abuse of power?"@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"President."1 "Subject: Use of a generic rule for a specific purpose"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph