Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-11-20-Speech-2-709-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20121120.37.2-709-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
". −
Mr President, the transposition of Community law is something that should clearly be of great interest to each and every MEP. Why? Following a well-honed procedure, which now usually involves only one reading in Parliament but extensive deliberations in the committees, takes a wide range of viewpoints into account, and involves contact with the Council, negotiations with the Council, and compromises and decisions in the European Parliament, we make rules that apply, or should apply, to the entire European Union. It is this ‘should’ that I will now discuss.
When we see the effort that goes into making these laws, these European regulations, and then have to observe how, in some Member States, this EU law is transposed, applied and monitored carelessly or not at all, this should give us plenty of food for thought. Unfortunately, over the last few years in particular, the European Union’s Member States have not necessarily become more inclined to emphasise the similarities in Europe more than the differences and to observe the common rules of play.
I could list a wide range of examples for you. What is important in this process is that we point out where legislation has not been transposed, where it has been transposed incorrectly or inadequately or where it is not being monitored. Individual citizens play an important role here by contacting the Commission with a complaint, to draw its attention to the fact that something is going wrong in a certain Member State. We come here to a critical point, which the Committee on Legal Affairs and my report criticise sharply.
A number of years ago, the Commission introduced ‘EU Pilot’, a pilot project that essentially aims to bring the fewest possible infringement proceedings against Member States. Instead, an attempt is made in an informal way to reach an agreement with the Member State. So far there is nothing here to object to. However, when the complainant does not hear anything from the Commission other than ‘I have received your complaint’ and then hears nothing more for ages, and when he himself does not have access to what is known about the progress of the non-transposition process he has instituted, something is rotten in the State of Denmark. This is no way to proceed.
We are therefore asking the Commission not to use soft law, but to introduce a codification, a ‘procedural law’ in the form of a regulation under Article 298 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which ultimately respects the rights of the complainant and takes them seriously. Citizens should be our central focus. We must ensure – when they get so involved and defend the rights of Parliament, of the legislator at European level, against their own Member State – that they also receive appropriate information. I therefore make my appeal once again, as I did last year, to the Commission to take systematic action in this area to improve the situation for complainants once and for all."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples