Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-06-13-Speech-2-302"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060613.28.2-302"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, on 13 September 2005, the Court of Justice of the European Communities granted the Community legislator the opportunity to take legal measures so as to guarantee the effectiveness of the rules decreed by the Court. Everyone understood this to mean – at any rate, those in Vienna understood it to mean – that the Court had turned the principle of subsidiarity inside out like a sock in order to decide that, on the subject of Community law, there was no point in the Member States taking care to ensure that it was complied with since the Commission of Brussels was able to do so all by itself.
The Commission has obviously not failed to step into this breach: while, strictly speaking, this new legal power only concerns the environment, a Commission communication of November 2005 makes more widespread use of this power to incorporate other subjects, including the four freedoms, the CAP and fishing. Mr Cavada, our draftsman, even extends this power to include discriminatory behaviour, which can cover all human activities and even the protection of the Union’s financial interests.
It is here that one can see the danger of this umpteenth show of strength by the judges of Luxembourg. On 6 April 2006, scarcely two months ago, in fact, the European Court of First Instance ordered Mr Frattini – the Commission – to pay damages and interest to an official on the grounds of a serious and obvious violation of the requirement for impartiality. Violation by whom? By OLAF, that is to say by the anti-fraud office, which is partly controlled by the Commission.
Thus, to grant legal powers to this Commission, on the subject of which the Court of Auditors, in its Special Report No 1 of 2005, notes that respect for the fundamental rights of persons subject to an inquiry is not guaranteed, means running the risk of creating, at the Berlaymont, a little centre in which people’s liberties are infringed, a kind of regulatory mini-Guantanamo. The draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Mr Cavada, is, moreover, aware of the problem since he is calling for the judgment to be applied with prudence and he might have added: with jurisprudence, the prudence of the law and, in particular, of the law of the Treaties, which does not permit the powers of the third pillar to be transferred to the first pillar.
However, since 1962 and its Costa versus ENEL judgment, the Court has been imprudently and continuously carrying out a federal
. As the great British legal expert, Dicey, said: judges must be lions, but lions under the throne, being circumspect that they do not check or oppose any points of sovereignty. Putting someone in prison is a matter for criminal law. It is not a trivial matter."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples