Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-02-20-Speech-3-258"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080220.13.3-258"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have already said that today’s debate should not be without consequences, and I want to re-emphasise that. I will brief Mr Jung on the content of this debate and Parliament’s input, and make suggestions too, as several very important suggestions have been made during this debate, which the Commission should take seriously.
As far as Mr Rack’s question is concerned: decisions on treaty infringements, be it the lead-up or the conclusion or any individual step in between, require a formal decision by the College of Commissioners. That is how it is organised. I am unable here and now to answer your question about the specific problem of cross-subsidies, but I will make sure that you receive an answer before the end of this week.
Regarding Mr Kuc’s remarks on the length of detention while awaiting trial, I admit that this would be a scandal if it occurred, but it is outside the jurisdiction of the European Union. The European Court of Human Rights is the competent court for such cases.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for all your suggestions and the constructive spirit of this debate. I am fairly sure that we will have made further progress when we discuss it again next year.
Allow me to make another comment based on the philosophy of law: a community of nations under the rule of law is based on trust. It can function only if those who participate can trust each other. This is why, in a constitutional state, legal proceedings must take place in public and it is also the reason why I agree completely with what Mrs Wallis said. Information is vital here, and transparency is imperative.
There can be no policy of secrecy in applying and interpreting the law. Everything must be open and public. That is what I take from this debate, anyway, and I have always been convinced of it. I agree with what Mrs Wallis said about the role of the Committee on Petitions. As her customer, in a manner of speaking, I freely admit that this sometimes requires a great deal of work and effort, but citizens are entitled to expect us to make this effort. In addition, the petitions we receive teach us a great deal about how our citizens perceive our law and our policies.
Mrs Frassoni, Commissioner Wallström has already promised that, in future, we will create a citizens’ summary. Since then, the Commission has also passed a formal resolution on this, so it is going to happen, and I am quite sure you will find ways and means of making very sure that we do it. It has been decided and it will happen.
Many Members have pondered the question of the new Member States and how it can be that, despite growth in the number of Members, there has been no growth in lawsuits for infringement of treaties.
The Commission has a very clear opinion on this, and that is that there are two reasons: firstly – and here I feel rather self-conscious, for I really ought to say that this is due to the good work of the previous Enlargement Commissioner – it has to do with the fact that the new Member States prepared so exactingly for their
that, at the time they joined, they met the requirements more precisely than the old Member States. I can only confirm this. It is the absolute truth. We would never have been able to conclude the accession treaties if the
had not been fulfilled.
The other reason is perhaps somewhat more practical, however: citizens of the new Member States need to learn, gradually, that they can complain, and how to do so. I therefore assume that the number of complaints will increase.
Mr Smith mentioned that the law must also be straightforward and applicable, particularly in regard to environmental legislation. As we know, the Commission is working on reviewing all Community law by the end of next year in order to ascertain where and how it can be simplified. Just a few days ago, as part of our presentation of progress on this ‘Better Regulation’ project, we promised that this whole process would indeed be completed by the end of next year.
Mr Medina, you do not need to worry that the Commission is sweeping complaints under the carpet. From my own experience of more than eight years as a member of the Commission, I can assure you that I have had to put the brakes on overzealous Commission departments far more often than I have needed to urge them to fire up the heavy artillery of the treaty infringement process. Far more frequently, I have to say to them: ‘Hang on, just slow down, talk to them first and see if this can be resolved peaceably’. The risk of Commission departments tending to brush things under the carpet is almost nonexistent. I am certain that it does not happen."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples