Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-17-Speech-2-315"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060117.23.2-315"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the application of the Arhus Convention to the European institutions constitutes a major step forward, because it helps – as is necessary – to make the process of drawing up European legislation transparent, so that the public has more of a say in the preparation of environmental plans and environmental programmes.
This regulation enhances democracy in the environmental area. The provisions of Arhus with regard to access to information, participation in decision-making and judicial access for environmental issues will apply across the whole of the EU. From now on, not only the Member States, but also the Community institutions, will need to comply with these provisions.
Accessing justice, as provided for in the Arhus Convention, entails that the public must have the option of bringing environmental decisions taken by the EU institutions before the European Court. At the moment, citizens with an environmental interest or environmental NGOs have no opportunity of raising any issues with the Court because they are rarely affected personally – the conditions included in the EC Treaty apply to access to justice, something that is often easier to demonstrate in the case of economic operators. It is, of course, important for NGOs to enjoy the same level of access to justice, although the way in which this has been fleshed out by the Commission and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety – particularly in Amendments 22 and 25 – is liable to attract some criticism.
To prevent many hundreds of NGOs from bringing minor objections before the court, amendments are used to prescribe strict conditions for NGOs who can make a request for internal review. Even with those conditions – that are now before us and that the rapporteur has presented to us separately – in place, there will be many NGOs who can submit requests of this kind.
It is not the intention to bring every single environmental decision taken by the European institutions before the Court, for that generates legal uncertainty and will only increase the European Court’s heavy workload. On the other hand, at times when there is serious doubt as to a certain environmental decision, it must be possible to raise this with the relevant authorities.
My group is divided over this issue. Whilst some are great fans of Amendments 22 and 25, because they feel that these remove an imbalance, that the Arhus Convention is thus better implemented and that this is in line with the EC Treaty, others think the reverse, namely that these create inequality because environmental NGOs would be given a privileged position and that moreover, the Convention would be at least at loggerheads with the Treaty.
I can only regret that there is no room for a middle way, as a result of which NGOs would have the opportunity of having their say at times when it is really necessary, without there being the risk of numerous insignificant objections being lodged. In fact, I now believe that it would be preferable if the Convention were to simply give greater opportunities for access to justice, which is, in fact, what the late Constitutional Treaty would have done had it not now been abandoned."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples