Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-04-Speech-2-046"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070904.4.2-046"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I must say I am pleased that Commissioner McCreevy, in his answer to this oral question, did not reject the European Parliament’s suggestions. Over the past few years, there have been so many hearings and consultations about the European Private Company that I cannot understand why we need to have a third, a fourth, a fifth and perhaps even a sixth or however many more. The matter is closed. We had an initial proposal in the Commission’s action plan. That was approved, in the revised action plan, by the majority of stakeholders. The hearings in Parliament produced an unequivocal message. Parliament’s decisions could not have been clearer, and on that basis I cannot accept any further delays.
Experts are generally agreed that there is a gap in the law in the Directive on the cross-border transfer of registered seat. The European Union offers freedom of movement of capital – that is, the option of moving one’s property or capital to a different location – but if I own a business, I do not currently have that option because I cannot decide freely where to base my business, or where to transfer it to, within the European Union. That is very clearly a gap in the law. The Commission, in its annual legislative programme, announced its intention of closing the gap. Currently we have a situation where the European Court of Justice is developing its own case-law in this area and tending towards Wild West-style deregulation, for the simple reason that the legislature is inert; it is doing nothing to address the areas where we lack harmonisation. It is high time that the legislature acted, instead of handing all responsibility over to the Court of Justice.
One final point: the European Commission’s monopoly on initiative does not exist in a vacuum. Like any monopoly, it has to be seen in a context and, in this case, the context follows from the Treaty and the Interinstitutional Agreements. According to those texts, both the Council and the European Parliament have an indirect right of initiative. The Commission, in the Interinstitutional Agreements, has undertaken to respond to their proposals. That being so, I wish to make it very clear that if the Commission fails to deliver a substantive response on this issue within the stipulated time limit, I shall propose to the Committee on Legal Affairs that we take proceedings against it in the European Court for failure to act."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples