Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-03-15-Speech-3-373"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060315.27.3-373"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am actually here to represent my colleague Mr Gargani, who, as Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs, is the real draftsman of this question. Nevertheless, it is an honour for me to do so.
Before I give detailed reasons for this question, I should like to say a few words about the background. The history of this issue, namely that of liberal professions, in particular legal professions – to whom this question relates – goes back several years. Parliament dealt with this issue in the previous parliamentary term on the basis of two questions for oral answer in the corresponding resolutions, particularly in the light of the activities of the Internal Market and Services Directorate General under Mario Monti, the former Commissioner for competition, and also in view of the study by the Vienna Institute for Advanced Studies that sparked off this whole debate.
I do not wish to conceal the fact that the Committee on Legal Affairs actually always held a broad conviction – even across the political spectrum – that this Vienna study took a very biased approach, one biased towards economic aspects, and did not take sufficient account of the specific role of the liberal professions, particularly the legal professions, in administering justice. The Committee also feared – and this was borne out to some extent by the documents – that the Commission had not always drawn the correct conclusions from the documents of the Vienna study and, furthermore, was consciously conducting a policy that we doubted was the right course in the case of some particular issues. After all, liberal professions, with their particular importance, quite simply cannot be compared with the supermarket round the corner in terms of competition policy and competition law. Their origins are different, their importance to the functioning of society is different.
Presenting another question for oral answer today, following the latest Commission interim report presented by Commissioner Kroes – an accompanying resolution will follow in the coming week – practically continues the tradition from the previous parliamentary term.
I should like to make it crystal clear at this juncture that we, too, are of course well aware that antiquated customs should be dispensed with. We are no longer living in the Middle Ages, and the guild system is a thing of the past. Nonetheless, particular account must of course be taken of the distinguishing features of the liberal professions: in particular the legal professions, which are what interests the Committee on Legal Affairs. These features form part of the judicial system, and have to function. If the system does not function, the public suffers, being afforded insufficient legal protection, and this means that an intrinsic part of democracy, namely the rule of law, is also called into question. That is why the rules for the liberal professions have to be scrutinised very carefully and in great detail, and why we have to consider carefully what is needed in order to afford legal protection and access to justice for all citizens that is as effective and safe as possible, including in practice. Naturally, this should be done with particular regard to the case law of the European Court of Justice.
I should now like to turn to a specific problem which has, of course, also been addressed in conjunction with this question, and which was one of the reasons that the Committee on Legal Affairs wanted a further debate on this issue today in plenary. That problem is the specific role of tariffs in the liberal legal professions, since, in many EU Member States, these have a special nature and importance, especially in connection with the rules for reimbursement of legal expenses, and also in situations in which companies providing legal-expenses insurance wish to make reimbursements themselves on behalf of their clients. Such things are virtually impossible without tariffs, and are also deeply rooted in the legal traditions of many Member States. As such, they should not be called into question without good cause, because they also represent a fundamental aspect of consumer protection. This should be made quite clear at this juncture.
The case law of the European Court of Justice has taken great care when dealing with such issues in the past. Just recently – a few weeks ago – we saw a specific instance in which the Advocate General, too, attempted to show due care in such issues. It is very important to us that the Commission cease dealing with this fundamental issue – which is extremely important to the functioning of the legal professions in many Member States – in this way, as the Commission’s documents would suggest. The Commission cannot treat the liberal professions in the same way as it does supermarkets. These professions have a special importance and role.
Some EU Member States have now abolished tariffs and, interestingly, this has meant an increase in prices for lawyers and consumers, for example – in some cases they are considerably higher, on average, than those in Member States who still have such a system. Particularly with regard to the price trend, this system has ensured that legal protection for consumers continues to be accessible and financially sustainable.
We would now welcome a reply to our oral question from Commissioner Kroes, who has already had the opportunity to discuss this issue with us in committee, on behalf of the Commission. We shall then have the opportunity to respond to it, both in the context of the debate and, in the coming week, in the context of the resolution."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples