Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-11-19-Speech-1-041-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20121119.17.1-041-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
". −
Mr President, Commissioner Reding, after two full years of talks, I must begin by thanking our dogged and patient rapporteur, Mr Zwiefka, for the way in which he has guided our deliberations. Thanks are also due to the Cypriot Presidency, sadly not represented here today, and to the Danish and Polish Presidencies which preceded it and did a great deal of very constructive work.
We do not have anything revolutionary, but in terms of what we as legislators can achieve, we have ended up with a reasonable result which improves things for employees and consumers. Even before this recast version, the Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments within the EU was already one of the flagship single market regulations that worked well. I should like to highlight a few positive points which are especially important to my group, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament.
First of all, there are clear rules on access to justice and the enforceability of the individual’s rights, something that is important to members of the public, businesses and the functioning of the single market as a whole. Abolition of the
process was, of course, the core task we had to complete, and despite initial doubts we have succeeded. Application of the Regulation is to be extended to non-EU countries; the intention of the European Commission is that this should not apply in all cases, but it will at least apply in consumer affairs and matters of individual employment contracts, with protection for the weaker party. That is extremely important. The negotiations on this Regulation have been with us since the 2009 Green Paper, so since the start of the parliamentary term, and this recast version has been two whole years in the making.
I find it very odd that the Commission has presented this reworked version as a ‘recast’ text. In my view, recasting is supposed to be a procedural simplification of non-controversial subjects, designed to speed up the procedure for adapting legal texts. Brussels I is most definitely not uncontroversial, so as a result the process was neither simple nor brief. I can only imagine that the Commission’s motive in choosing to recast is the desire to restrict the legislative power of Parliament, but also of the Council. To my mind, the democratic legitimacy of that is highly suspect. For that reason, I ask that the interinstitutional agreement with the Commission be revised accordingly. We cannot have the executive restricting the legislative process like this and, at the same time, proposing radical changes to the Regulation.
Now to what I see as the most important thing, right at the end. Looking to the future of the Brussels I Regulation, I recommend, as rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, that the Commission introduces jurisdiction for industrial action, in order to stop proceedings brought as the result of strikes from dragging on. Apart from anything else, this would at last establish coherence between procedural law and materially applicable law. The Rome II Regulation determines which law is applicable to claims or damage which have a cross-border impact. This rules that, in cases of damage suffered in connection with strike action, the law of the country where the industrial action was taken should apply. Why should the same not apply in respect of the jurisdiction of the courts? I would ask the Commission to give thought to this. We in the European Parliament most certainly shall."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples