Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-06-13-Speech-3-484-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120613.29.3-484-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, I would like to express my thanks to the Commission, and particularly to Commissioner Barnier, for the very simple reason that in the last legislative period, which ended in 2009, our experience was that – with the exception of a very brief moment of awakening when the proposal for the European private company came – Commissioner Barnier’s predecessor, Commissioner McGreevy, in fact allowed company law to be left in a deep sleep, and we made no progress at all over those five years on this important issue, which also has significance for the internal market. Thankfully, that has changed entirely.
We now have a multitude of consultation documents from the European Commission, a group of experts that has debated the issue of how to develop company law further, and now we have a brand new consultation which, naturally, Parliament is looking at too. The Committee on Legal Affairs decided that we did not want to do this in the form of a report, simply because a report requires even more time and is naturally somewhat more detailed. Instead, we chose to put an oral question to the Commission, in order to be able to discuss this topic with the Commission, with Commissioner Barnier, and so that, at the same time, we can make clear Parliament’s position on what should happen now in a subsequent resolution.
Just as was the case around ten years ago, it is necessary to develop a new action plan on European company law. This is necessary for a great many reasons. There are gaps in European company law, real gaps, which basically are resulting in the fact that the internal market has not been completed. To mention one example, there is the missing 14th directive on the transfer of company seats, which, in my opinion, is a fairly typical example of such a gap. Parliament has asked twice in legislative own-initiative reports for the European Commission to table specific proposals. There is also the committee of experts convened by the European Commission itself, which has expressed the same opinion on this. Quite simply, it is part of the basic freedoms of the internal market that a company in the internal market must be able to transfer its registered domicile. This is not possible at present, or only under extremely difficult conditions.
In view of this, however, I must, at the same time, criticise the fact that the position of the European Commission to date on the topic of the 14th directive actually lags considerably behind Parliament’s expectations, and we are convinced that it does not meet the standard of a qualified answer to a legislative initiative either. However, we are of good courage that in the course of the continued work, when we get to the action plan, this proposal will hopefully then be reflected in the action plan.
Another important point in respect of company law is the issue of how to develop company law further in order to reduce the burden on companies. Here, the Commission has already tabled very specific proposals, such as on the subject of accounting. However, there is more to do beyond this and other aspects now require clarification in the course of the consultations. We are expecting further proposals from the Commission in this area, too.
I should also like to ask the Commission to revive the topic of the European private company, which, at the moment, is stuck in the Council. If there are individual Member States in the EU – and here I am expressing my own personal opinion – that are intrinsically unable, because of their own lack of decisiveness, to end the deadlock here and take Europe forward, then just as in the case of other projects – in the case of patent law or family law, for example – we must give some thought to using the instrument of enhanced cooperation, so that at least all the other Europeans will be able to enjoy this possibility. I would ask the Commission to give this issue greater consideration.
Another outstanding problem is the issue of applicable law; in other words, a kind of Rome Regulation for cross-border problems in company law. I believe that this issue, too, needs further investigation and discussion, and I would ask the Commission to do this.
Insolvency law is also closely related to this. In this area, however, it has been announced anyway that we will receive a specific proposal from the European Commission in the foreseeable future.
As you can see, a huge amount remains to be done in the area of company law. I am grateful that Commissioner Barnier has taken the initiative here and that we can see that in the second half of this legislative period, we will receive significant proposals, which could then represent progress in the completion of the internal market. Parliament supports both the principle and the approach here. Naturally, we will have to talk about the details, and we will certainly do so. However, for the time being, I would like to give the Commission our thanks. Naturally, we would now be pleased if the Commission were actually to take up our initiatives and turn them into specific proposals."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples