Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-14-Speech-4-227"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-12-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Hague Convention on securities (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20061214.46.4-227"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-12-14-Speech-4-2282
lpv:speaker	lp:Pervenche Berès2
lpv:spokenAs	member; PES (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Parti socialiste (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 chair; ECON (2004-09-01--2007-01-14)3 member; Conference of Committee Chairs (2004-09-01--2007-01-15)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 substitute; AFCO (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Committee of Inquiry into the crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society (2006-01-19--2007-06-19)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, Commissioner, this afternoon we will address the question of the European Union’s signature of the Hague Convention on the law applicable to certain rights in respect of securities held with an intermediary. This Parliament has accepted the Union’s signing up to the Hague Convention in so far as it is intended to exercise democratic control on each sectoral ratification. The Convention we are debating concerns us in more than one respect, particularly because it will lead to the revision of a certain number of directives which we have adopted in the area in question. I am thinking of directives on ‘collateral’, ‘settlement finality’ and ‘winding up of credit institutions’. That said, we could revise these directives without much difficulty, if we did not fear three fundamental obstacles. Firstly, the ratification of this Convention on the law applicable to certain rights in respect of securities leaves such a wide margin of discretion for parties to choose the applicable law that we greatly fear that all of the instruments that we have carefully and at length put in place at European Union level to combat money laundering may quite simply be bypassed. Secondly, the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force, the FATF, on the need to be able to identify the owners of securities seem to us to be totally incompatible with this Hague Convention in so far as, once again, it allows parties too much freedom to choose the applicable law. Thirdly, we fear that the coming into force of such a Convention will lead to the bypassing of the provisions that the Union has adopted in order to deal with abuses of the market. Once again, without clear identification, we fear that it may be possible to bypass certain obligations laid down at European Union level. From this point of view, I will now invoke the opinion of the European Central Bank – just the once will not do any harm - in order to ask for the withdrawal of this proposal. As you know, the European Central Bank has expressed some very important reservations in its opinion; it has particularly highlighted the systemic risks and the risk of an exponential growth of litigation which could prejudice a clear arbitration with respect to determining the ranking of securities. Mr Barrot, your Commission has almost made ‘better legislation’ into the leitmotif of its activity: here is a textbook case in which you could put this principle into practice. This is why we call on the Commission to withdraw its proposal to ratify the Hague Convention on the law applicable to certain rights in respect of securities."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph