Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-09-13-Speech-2-551-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110913.41.2-551-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to thank all the honourable Members for a very good debate which once again demonstrates the importance we all attach to better regulation and implementation of the law for the proper functioning of the European Union. I would also like to thank all of you for your strong commitment to better regulation, transparency and a reduction of the administrative burden. I would like to assure you that all these goals are fully shared by the Commission.
My last comment is on the proposal for the new procedural court. This is a very sensitive and very important legal question, because under the Treaties, it is the Commission that oversees the application of EU law under the sole control of the Court of Justice. This view is confirmed by the Court’s case-law which we must, of course, all respect. Thus it is for the Commission alone, subject to the authority of the Court of Justice, to organise the way in which it manages infringement proceedings and related work to ensure the correct application of EU law. Therefore, for legal reasons, a regulation based on Article 298 TFEU cannot be used to regulate the specific responsibilities directly conferred by the Treaties upon the Commission in this area.
To conclude, I would like to thank the rapporteurs and the Members of the European Parliament for a very good discussion. We are very much looking forward to discussing with them further progress in this very important area.
In reaction to some of the interventions and comments, I would like to underline that smart regulation remains a key priority for the Commission. We have a very ambitious agenda with clearly defined priorities, many of which are reflected in the report. We are fully aware of the climate in which we are living, the serious crisis and the need for measures to make life for businesses, and especially SMEs, much easier. We know that in this way we can also contribute to a situation where we will return to a Europe of growth and new job creation.
With regard to smart regulation, I have already described some aspects in my introductory remarks. Some of you mentioned the need to consult the final consumers – the citizens and businesses. We really do that. We have a very extensive programme of public consultations. We have even extended the period in which citizens or businesses can communicate with us and can comment on our proposals from 8 to 12 weeks.
Regarding SMEs and Mr de Jong’s comments, I would like to assure him and all of you that we are fully committed to following up on the June 2011 European Council conclusions that requested the further reduction of the regulatory burden on SMEs. The SME test we have in the Commission is very thorough, and we have suggested several proposals on this matter to the Council. I have to say that some of them have been too difficult for the Council to adopt, so we will further continue the discussion with the Council on how to reduce administrative burdens for SMEs.
I would like to assure Mr Kožušník from the Czech Republic that we will meet the target of a 25% reduction in the administrative burden. We will actually exceed it because, according to our calculations, we have already put on the table proposals which would reduce the administrative burden by 31%. For that, we need the collaboration of this Parliament and of the Council and, of course, we need appropriate implementation in the Member States. We can make the proposals but the work must be done where the law is applied in the Member States. We hope that we will be very successful in this indeed.
Regarding Ms Geringer de Oedenberg’s comments and her reluctant position on the ‘one regulatory measure in, one out’ approach, here in Europe, we are overshooting this target. Very often, through our legislation, we put one in and we get 27 out, because we are actually replacing legislation at the national level. Very often it is much more efficient to legislate at European level, because it is much better and it brings many economies and a lot of coherence into the single market of the European Union. We should look at each piece of legislation on a case-by-case basis, via a solid impact assessment. I believe that this would definitely be an optimal approach.
Many honourable Members of the European Parliament commented on access to documents. Here I should start by clarifying what I see as a misunderstanding. The Commission’s proposal on access to documents did not have the intention of decreasing the level of transparency. On the contrary, and to give an example on the topical issue of the definition of documents, the Commission’s proposal has been misunderstood as limiting the scope of official documents mentioned in the public registers. This is absolutely not the case. The existing wide definition of documents is maintained, and is only being clarified. This clarification should help identify documents much more rapidly, and thus I believe deliver more transparency rather than less.
Another important point, mentioned by Ms Sommer, is the proposal to ensure space to think. All institutions and bodies must have the ability to reflect on the possible policy options before taking the decision. This was another proposal we made when we were presenting our proposal for this area. I would like to assure you that the Commission invests a great deal in the examination of requests for information and in granting access when appropriate. We are promoting transparency in all our activities and each Commission department has a dedicated member of staff in charge of coordinating the application of access to documents.
To conclude on access to documents, I would like to invite Parliament to consider a twin-track approach: firstly relaunching the legislative process on the recast regulation by concentrating on what really belongs to the fundamental substance of the regulation; and secondly, adopting rapidly the second Commission proposal from last March extending the obligation in terms of access to documents to all EU institutions. I believe that we have to respect the Lisbon Treaty and we have to act quickly because our citizens deserve access to documents and information from other institutions as well."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples