Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-14-Speech-3-320"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051214.21.3-320"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I wish to begin by saying – on the previous point made by Mr Casaca – that when preparing the allocation of grants, the Commission examines the requests submitted by Member States, taking into account the needs and efficiencies of each Member State, as they result mainly from the national programme and from the earlier report on control activities, which each Member State must transmit to the Commission. Priority is given to those investments which are deemed more cost-effective, bearing in mind the general interest in achieving a high level of control throughout the Community. Therefore, priority may change over the years and be different for different Member States.
The Commission has launched a consultation process on improving the quality of data collected and reported and the analysis of this data, in order to compare the situation between Member States. Furthermore, the Commission intends to propose a catalogue of sanctions to be imposed in cases of serious infringements, for adoption by the Council, as foreseen in Article 25(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002. The catalogue should help to increase the level of sanctions and contribute to the establishment of a more level playing field. This catalogue is scheduled to be presented by the Commission in the second half of 2007.
As I have already said, the discrepancies are, therefore, large and our preference is for administrative sanctions, since they are more effective and can be implemented quickly.
In reply to a specific point that was made, I would say that our proposal for the harmonisation of sanctions for serious infringements will be published in 2007. We hope that this will create a more level playing field and, at the same time, address the issue of proportionality.
With regard to the last point, which was raised by Mr Casaca, concerning Amendments 2 and 6, I apologise. The information that I have is that these amendments were not supported in committee. However, I will look into this and contact him tomorrow before the vote.
I totally agree with Mr Kindermann that control and enforcement is a cornerstone of the effectiveness of the common fisheries policy. I am committed to continuing to strengthen control and enforcement activities. The establishment of the control agency this year will certainly make an important contribution in this area.
On the points raised by Mrs Attwooll, Mr Crowley and other speakers with regard to the whole question of sanctions, let me say that the main trend, as published in the communication, shows that the total number of serious infringements has varied considerably from one year to another – from 4 180 in 2000 to 9 502 in 2003. It is difficult to know if this increase in the infringements detected means that the rate of detection of serious infringements is improving or if the number of infringements committed has increased.
One notable element of progress with regard to deterrence is the fact that the average amount of fines imposed has increased from EUR 1 757 in 2002 to EUR 4 664 in 2003 – that is an increase in one year of 165%. However, the fact that fines imposed in 2003 amount to only 0.004% of the value of landings in 2002, makes us think that fines remain too modest to represent a real deterrent for rule breakers. Having said that, this is a general statement, and one would have to look into the various subsectors and offences with regard to which these fines have been imposed.
Some conclusions from the previous communications are, firstly, that there are substantial differences between the average penalties applied – as a number of Members have made clear tonight – and that the amount of penalties remains too low to represent an effective deterrent against non-compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy.
Regarding whether criminal procedures or administrative procedures are the best option, Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 foresees that Member States are to take appropriate measures against responsible persons when the common fisheries rules have not been respected.
Member States can prosecute infringements through criminal or administrative procedures, provided that these measures are effective and proportionate to the seriousness of the infringements. The Commission cannot otherwise interfere in the choice of the instrument by individual Member States. This could touch upon the sensitive issue of state sovereignty.
Having said that, I repeat that it is the Commission’s view that administrative procedures – and thus administrative sanctions – are preferable. They are preferable because they can be imposed swiftly by an administrative authority, as this does not require the lengthy process involved in establishing liability before sanctions can be imposed in criminal proceedings. They are less expensive than judicial proceedings. Non-criminal sanctions can be swiftly imposed and have been seen to be more effective than more severe penal sanctions. For instance, an administrative sanction, such as suspension of a fishing permit, may be an effective way to encourage compliance, as it can be applied quickly. I regret that the majority of Member States do not use this tool more often.
The sanction – be it criminal or administrative – must be tailored to the seriousness of the infringement. Mitigating or aggravating factors include: a negative impact of the violation on fisheries resources or type of fish; previous conduct of the violators; repetition of the same infringement; and the estimated economic benefits deriving from the infringement."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples