Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-05-09-Speech-3-226"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070509.21.3-226"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, I would like to start by thanking Diana Wallis for her – as usual – excellent report, and take pleasure and satisfaction in saying that we have in this House a rapporteur who always delivers highly accurate reports, particularly from the legal point of view, which is extremely important here.
In 1968, a US aircraft crashed with nuclear weapons on board. The writer of a petition which reached our Committee, suffered problems with his health and believes that he was not adequately compensated.
The Committee was again the last resort for a large number of people who had nowhere else to seek justice. This gave rise to an interesting legal aspect which Mrs Wallis dealt with excellently. The accident took place in 1968, while Denmark together with Greenland joined the European Union in 1973, and in 1985 Greenland left the European Union, while the Directive establishing basic safety standards in the event of such accidents (that is, Directive of the Council 96/29/EURATOM), dates from 13 May 1996. Although from the dates themselves it appears that the author of the petition stood no chance of seeking justice here, Diana Wallis proved that according to the precedents of the ECJ, new provisions of community law are fundamentally applicable to the future outcome of events that took place before prior legislative acts came into effect, such as Greenland’s withdrawal from the European Union.
If states actually applied the relevant directives, the Committee on Petitions would have fewer problems to deal with. I would like to recall just three cases – the Lloyds case, the Equitable Life case and the matter of local planning abuses in Spain, which were brought simply because the relevant directives were not properly implemented in the countries in question. The injured parties are entitled to remedy for damage suffered, and we are all entitled to security in the future."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples