Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-11-30-Speech-3-199"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051130.18.3-199"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, it is a joyful evening, for I am delighted with what Commissioner Frattini has done, and I also very much endorse the document produced by the Commission – to which I am grateful – that describes the effects of the judgment of 13 December 2005.
Indeed, along with Mrs Roure and the Commission, I share the view that this pertains not only to environmental matters, but has repercussions in many more areas. The Commission has produced a list of decisions that need adjusting – about which I will say something in a moment – but there is also an important decision underway that has been the subject of many debates, namely the decision on data retention. The Commission knows that Parliament sets great store by the fact that an enormous amount of data will probably be collected but will be used for limited purposes. Am I right in concluding from the judgment that legally, we can impose a penalty if this data is misused? Whilst this is, of course, a matter of political resolve that we have to reach a decision of this kind, it is legally possible, and would that penalty legally apply, not only for the providers but also for the government?
The other point is about implementing this list so that it is legally in order. I share the Commission’s view in this, namely that we should not subject everything to a codecision procedure, and that we should make pragmatic adjustments to some extent, although I have reservations, because sometimes, there are aspects, such as facilitating unauthorised entry, which I know for a fact presented my group with a major dilemma. Indeed, there are people who help others to enter the EU because they think those people really need political asylum. I think that we should draw a distinction between people who help others for financial gain and others who really do this out of non-commercial motives. Whilst in my case, I am still undecided as to whether we can carry out all those adjustments so easily, I do share the view that a whole new codecision procedure would probably be unwarranted for the lion’s share of the proposals.
I am taking advantage of the fact that I have not been silenced to add a quick question of my own. Article 13, which refers to the old existing anti-discrimination directives, does enable the Member States to impose their own penalties if they consider this to be proportionate and effective. Would it not be possible at some stage, to table a proposal to that effect, to throw this open to the whole of Europe in order to demonstrate that we consider this so important for the civil rights, that we in Europe think that any instance of discrimination should incur a financial sanction."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples