Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-04-Speech-2-044"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070904.4.2-044"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate on this question is very important both institutionally and politically, bearing in mind that it is of considerable political and institutional significance.
A directive in this field – I am concluding – would certainly provide a sound legal basis for companies’ freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services. We are awaiting a detailed proposal from the Commissioner which means not just going along with the various lobbies, from England, from the United Kingdom and Ireland, I think, but addressing an adverse situation. It is not the interests of individual countries that have to be served, Commissioner, as you are well aware, but the interests of Europeans! Parliament is not a lobby and we are actually and tangibly expressing that requirement and that necessity!
I should like to say very clearly, and I take responsibility for my words, that the European Commission has seriously failed the European Parliament since it has failed to follow up Parliament’s formal requests and has failed to present proposals for legislation on European Private Companies and relocations of head offices of capital companies.
A proposal for legislation on the statute of the company was formally requested in February 2007, on the basis of Article 192 of the Treaty and – as I would like to stress, and I would ask the Commissioner to listen because this is a very important oral question, Mr President, to which an answer must be given – after a thorough debate, together with a hearing with qualified and representative experts who showed us how necessary such an instrument was and how useful it would be in fostering small enterprises keen to operate effectively in the internal market.
It was the Commission’s duty, Commissioner, immediately to launch the procedure for adopting the legislative proposal, starting with an impact assessment. The Commission already had, moreover, a feasibility study from December 2005, but did nothing and instead took its time until in July it launched a consultation on the need – here again no more than a hypothetical discussion – for a European Private Company, as though Parliament, as the elected representative of the Union as a whole, could not legitimately base its request on a substantive legislative act.
I shall not look in detail at the European legislation, as Klaus Lehne, one of the Committee’s main experts and a leader in this field, will shortly talk about the legal aspects of the question. I should like to look at the problem in greater depth and remind the Commissioner, so that he can give due consideration to everything that I say, of the relationship that exists between the institutions and on which the necessary cooperation between the Commission and Parliament has to be based.
In my opinion, Commissioner, you personally have done Parliament a discourtesy, you have snubbed Parliament. You have ignored Parliament’s requests adopted on the basis of Article 192 and in particular the interinstitutional agreement ‘Better Regulation’, and there have been many failures to act – I have been Chairman of that committee and I am very well aware how many questions are pending – even though the Commission had formally undertaken not only to take account of requests but also to provide rapid and appropriate answers to Parliament’s committees. That has not been the case at all!
The failure to comply with those obligations brings up the Commission’s accountability, which I have no difficulty in defining as legal, to the European Parliament. At the conference on company law organised by the German Presidency, Mr Lehne rightly said that the European Commission could be brought before the Court for Justice for failure to fulfil its obligations.
Parliament, and I say this very clearly, should be aware that the Commission, on its Internet site, has already confirmed that the consultations held in 1997 and 2002 showed a high-level and specific demand from economic operators. The Commission therefore knows how important this issue is and is aware that it has a duty and an obligation to reply to Parliament’s requests.
Not only has it failed to approve the proposal for legislation, but at the Berlin conference the Commissioner went as far as to say that further discussion of the usefulness of the proposal was necessary. That has left us very perplexed because we now need to consider – as the Commissioner says – whether the European Parliament still has a chance effectively to demonstrate the validity of that proposal for legislation."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples