Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-22-Speech-3-178"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2005-06-22"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Lloyd'i afäär⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050622.19.3-178"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-06-22-Speech-3-179⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Charlie McCreevy⁶
lpv:spoken text	". Mr President, the Commission believes it has fulfilled its duties under the Treaty. When doubts were raised, the Commission started an investigation and issued a letter of formal notice and a supplementary letter of formal notice. The Commission has answered questions put to it by the Parliament to the best of its ability. My predecessor met with representatives of the Committee on Petitions and answered questions in this Chamber, as well as many written questions. I have met with Mr Libicki to discuss this matter, and am here again this evening to answer Parliament’s questions. This is what accountability on the part of the Commission amounts to. The Commission has acted by deciding to open an infringement procedure and acted again by deciding to close the case when it received a satisfactory answer from the UK authorities. The Commission always endeavours to answer Parliament’s questions to the best of its abilities. In this case, however, the Commission is being asked to pronounce on whether a Member State was in conformity with Community law during a certain period in the past, and under a different legislative regime to that which is now in place. The Commission cannot answer that question because the pre-litigation and litigation proceedings that would have established the answer were not completed."@en⁴
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the Commission believes it has fulfilled its duties under the Treaty. When doubts were raised, the Commission started an investigation and issued a letter of formal notice and a supplementary letter of formal notice. The Commission has answered questions put to it by the Parliament to the best of its ability. My predecessor met with representatives of the Committee on Petitions and answered questions in this Chamber, as well as many written questions. I have met with Mr Libicki to discuss this matter, and am here again this evening to answer Parliament’s questions. This is what accountability on the part of the Commission amounts to. The Commission has acted by deciding to open an infringement procedure and acted again by deciding to close the case when it received a satisfactory answer from the UK authorities. The Commission always endeavours to answer Parliament’s questions to the best of its abilities. In this case, however, the Commission is being asked to pronounce on whether a Member State was in conformity with Community law during a certain period in the past, and under a different legislative regime to that which is now in place. The Commission cannot answer that question because the pre-litigation and litigation proceedings that would have established the answer were not completed."@cs¹ "Hr. formand, Kommissionen mener at have overholdt sine forpligtelser i henhold til traktaten. Da der blev rejst tvivl om dette, iværksatte Kommissionen en undersøgelse og fremsendte en åbningsskrivelse samt en supplerende åbningsskrivelse. Kommissionen har efter bedste evne besvaret de spørgsmål, Parlamentet har stillet. Min forgænger mødtes med repræsentanter for Udvalget for Andragender og besvarede spørgsmål her i salen samt mange spørgsmål til skriftlig besvarelse. Jeg har mødtes med hr. Libicki for at drøfte sagen, og jeg er her igen i aften for at besvare Parlamentets spørgsmål. Det er i overensstemmelse med Kommissionens ansvar. Kommissionen har handlet ved at træffe beslutning om at indlede en traktatbrudsprocedure og handlet på ny ved at beslutte at lukke sagen, da vi modtog et tilfredsstillende svar fra de britiske myndigheder. Kommissionen bestræber sig altid på at besvare Parlamentets spørgsmål efter bedste evne. I dette tilfælde bliver Kommissionen imidlertid bedt om at udtale sig om, hvorvidt en medlemsstat har overholdt fællesskabslovgivning i et bestemt tidsrum på et tidligere tidspunkt og under en anden lovgivningsmæssig ordning end den nuværende. Kommissionen kan ikke besvare det spørgsmål, fordi den indledende procedure og selve proceduren, der kunne have bragt os svaret, ikke blev gjort færdige."@da² ". Herr Präsident! Die Kommission vertritt die Auffassung, dass sie ihren vertraglich festgelegten Verpflichtungen nachgekommen ist. Als Zweifel laut wurden, leitete die Kommission eine Untersuchung ein und verschickte ein Fristsetzungsschreiben und ein ergänzendes Fristsetzungsschreiben. Die Kommission hat die Fragen, die ihr vom Parlament gestellt wurden, nach bestem Wissen und Gewissen beantwortet. Mein Amtsvorgänger kam mit Vertretern des Petitionsausschusses zusammen und beantwortete Fragen hier im Parlament sowie viele schriftliche Anfragen. Ich traf mich mit Herrn Libicki, um mit ihm gemeinsam diese Angelegenheit zu erörtern, und ich bin auch heute Abend wieder hier, um die Fragen des Parlaments zu beantworten. Genau darin besteht ja auch die Rechenschaftspflicht der Kommission. Die Kommission ist tätig geworden, indem sie den Beschluss zur Einleitung eines Vertragsverletzungsverfahrens fasste. Und sie wurde noch einmal aktiv, als sie sich zur Beendigung des Falls entschloss, nachdem sie von den britischen Behörden eine zufrieden stellende Antwort erhalten hatte. Die Kommission ist stets bemüht, die Fragen des Parlaments nach bestem Wissen und Gewissen zu beantworten. In diesem Fall wird die Kommission jedoch aufgefordert, ein Urteil darüber zu fällen, ob die Rechtvorschriften eines Mitgliedstaates während eines bestimmten Zeitraums in der Vergangenheit und im Rahmen eines anderen Rechtssystems, das jetzt nicht mehr in Kraft ist, mit dem Gemeinschaftsrecht in Einklang gestanden haben. Die Kommission kann diese Frage nicht beantworten, weil die Vorverfahren und die Gerichtsverfahren, die eine Antwort hätten liefern können, nicht zum Abschluss gebracht wurden."@de⁹ "Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η Επιτροπή πιστεύει ότι έχει εκπληρώσει τα καθήκοντά της σύμφωνα με τη Συνθήκη. Όταν εγέρθηκαν αμφιβολίες, η Επιτροπή άρχισε έρευνα και απέστειλε προειδοποιητική επιστολή και συμπληρωματική προειδοποιητική επιστολή. Η Επιτροπή απάντησε σε ερωτήσεις που της ετέθησαν από το Κοινοβούλιο στον καλύτερο δυνατό βαθμό. Ο προκάτοχός μου συναντήθηκε με αντιπροσώπους της Επιτροπής Αναφορών και απάντησε σε ερωτήσεις στο παρόν Κοινοβούλιο, καθώς και σε πολλές γραπτές ερωτήσεις. Συναντήθηκα με τον κ. Libicki για να συζητήσουμε αυτό το θέμα, και είμαι πάλι εδώ σήμερα το απόγευμα για να απαντήσω σε ερωτήσεις του Κοινοβουλίου. Αυτό ισοδυναμεί με λογοδοσία από την πλευρά της Επιτροπής. Η Επιτροπή ενήργησε αποφασίζοντας να κινήσει διαδικασία επί παραβάσει και ενήργησε πάλι αποφασίζοντας να περατώσει την υπόθεση όταν έλαβε ικανοποιητική απάντηση από τις βρετανικές αρχές. Η Επιτροπή πάντα προσπαθεί να απαντήσει στις ερωτήσεις του Κοινοβουλίου στο μέτρο των δυνατοτήτων της. Σε αυτή την περίπτωση, ωστόσο, ζητείται από την Επιτροπή να δηλώσει υπεύθυνα εάν ένα κράτος μέλος συμμορφώθηκε με το κοινοτικό δίκαιο κατά τη διάρκεια ορισμένης περιόδου στο παρελθόν, και υπό διαφορετικό νομοθετικό καθεστώς από αυτό που είναι τώρα σε ισχύ. Η Επιτροπή δεν μπορεί να απαντήσει σε αυτή την ερώτηση, επειδή η διαδικασία προ της προσφυγής και η διαδικασία προσφυγής που θα επαλήθευαν την απάντηση δεν ολοκληρώθηκαν."@el¹⁰ ". Señor Presidente, la Comisión considera que ha cumplido sus obligaciones previstas en el Tratado. Cuando surgieron dudas, la Comisión puso en marcha una investigación y envió una carta de notificación formal y otra complementaria. La Comisión ha respondido como mejor ha podido a las preguntas que le ha planteado el Parlamento. Mi predecesor se reunió con representantes de la Comisión de Peticiones y respondió a las preguntas de esta Cámara, así como a numerosas preguntas escritas. Me he reunido con el señor Libicki para tratar esta cuestión y esta noche estoy de nuevo aquí para responder a las preguntas del Parlamento. Hasta aquí es donde llega la responsabilidad de la Comisión. La Comisión actuó al decidir incoar un procedimiento de infracción y volvió a hacerlo al decidir cerrar el caso después de recibir una respuesta satisfactoria de las autoridades británicas. La Comisión siempre intenta responder a las preguntas del Parlamento en la medida de sus posibilidades. En este caso, sin embargo, se pide a la Comisión que se pronuncie sobre si un Estado miembro actuó conforme al Derecho comunitario durante un periodo determinado en el pasado y en el marco de un régimen legislativo distinto al que está en vigor hoy en día. La Comisión no puede responder a esta pregunta, ya que los procedimientos prejudicial y judicial que hubieran permitido establecer la respuesta no se han llevado a cabo."@es^20,20 "Mr President, the Commission believes it has fulfilled its duties under the Treaty. When doubts were raised, the Commission started an investigation and issued a letter of formal notice and a supplementary letter of formal notice. The Commission has answered questions put to it by the Parliament to the best of its ability. My predecessor met with representatives of the Committee on Petitions and answered questions in this Chamber, as well as many written questions. I have met with Mr Libicki to discuss this matter, and am here again this evening to answer Parliament’s questions. This is what accountability on the part of the Commission amounts to. The Commission has acted by deciding to open an infringement procedure and acted again by deciding to close the case when it received a satisfactory answer from the UK authorities. The Commission always endeavours to answer Parliament’s questions to the best of its abilities. In this case, however, the Commission is being asked to pronounce on whether a Member State was in conformity with Community law during a certain period in the past, and under a different legislative regime to that which is now in place. The Commission cannot answer that question because the pre-litigation and litigation proceedings that would have established the answer were not completed."@et⁵ "Arvoisa puhemies, komissio on mielestään toiminut perustamissopimusten vaatimalla tavalla. Kun heräsi epäilyksiä, komission aloitti tutkimuksen ja antoi virallisen ilmoituksen ja vielä toisen virallisen ilmoituksen. Komissio on vastannut parlamentin kysymykseen parhaan kykynsä mukaan. Edeltäjäni tapasi vetoomusvaliokunnan edustajia, vastasi kysymyksiin parlamentissa sekä moniin kirjallisiin kysymyksiin. Olen tavannut jäsen Libickin, jolloin keskustelimme tästä asiasta, ja tänä iltana olen taas täällä vastaamassa parlamentin kysymyksiin. Tätä vaatii komission tilivelvollisuus. Komissio toimi niin, että se päätti aloittaa rikkomismenettelyn, ja saatuaan Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan hallitukselta tyydyttävän vastauksen se päätti keskeyttää sen. Komissio pyrkii aina vastaamaan parlamentin kysymyksiin parhaansa mukaan. Tässä tapauksessa komissiota pyydetään kuitenkin sanomaan, oliko jäsenvaltion laki yhteisön lainsäädännön mukainen tiettynä menneisyyden ajanjaksona, jonka jälkeen tuo laki on muuttunut. Komissio ei voi vastata tuohon kysymykseen, koska oikeudenkäyntiä edeltävää menettelyä ja oikeusprosessia, joissa vastaus olisi selvinnyt, ei viety loppuun saakka."@fi⁷ "Monsieur le Président, la Commission estime avoir rempli les obligations que lui impose le traité CE. Lorsque des doutes sont apparus, la Commission a entamé une enquête et a adressé à l’État membre deux lettres de mise en demeure. La Commission a répondu aux questions posées par le Parlement au mieux de sa capacité. Mon prédécesseur a rencontré des représentants de la commission des pétitions et a répondu aux questions de cette Assemblée ainsi qu’à de nombreuses questions écrites. J’ai rencontré M. Libicki pour discuter de cette affaire et je suis à nouveau ici ce soir pour répondre aux questions du Parlement. La responsabilité de la Commission s’arrête là. La Commission a agi en décidant d’engager une procédure d’infraction puis de clore celle-ci lorsqu’elle a reçu une réponse satisfaisante des autorités britanniques. La Commission s’efforce toujours de répondre aux questions du Parlement du mieux qu’elle peut. Dans ce cas, cependant, il est demandé à la Commission de se prononcer sur la conformité d’un État membre avec le droit communautaire durant une certaine période passée et sous un régime législatif différent de celui qui est en place aujourd’hui. La Commission ne peut répondre à cette demande parce que la procédure précontentieuse et la procédure de résolution, qui auraient établi la réponse, n’ont pas été poursuivies jusqu’au bout."@fr⁸ "Mr President, the Commission believes it has fulfilled its duties under the Treaty. When doubts were raised, the Commission started an investigation and issued a letter of formal notice and a supplementary letter of formal notice. The Commission has answered questions put to it by the Parliament to the best of its ability. My predecessor met with representatives of the Committee on Petitions and answered questions in this Chamber, as well as many written questions. I have met with Mr Libicki to discuss this matter, and am here again this evening to answer Parliament’s questions. This is what accountability on the part of the Commission amounts to. The Commission has acted by deciding to open an infringement procedure and acted again by deciding to close the case when it received a satisfactory answer from the UK authorities. The Commission always endeavours to answer Parliament’s questions to the best of its abilities. In this case, however, the Commission is being asked to pronounce on whether a Member State was in conformity with Community law during a certain period in the past, and under a different legislative regime to that which is now in place. The Commission cannot answer that question because the pre-litigation and litigation proceedings that would have established the answer were not completed."@hu¹¹ "Signor Presidente, la Commissione ritiene di aver ottemperato agli obblighi previsti dai Trattati. Quando vennero sollevati dubbi, la Commissione avviò un’indagine e inviò una lettera di messa in mora nonché una lettera supplementare di messa in mora. La Commissione ha risposto al meglio delle sue capacità alle interrogazioni che il Parlamento le aveva sottoposto. Il mio predecessore si è incontrato con i rappresentanti della commissione per le petizioni e ha risposto sia alle interrogazioni poste in quest’Aula sia a molte interrogazioni scritte. Per quanto mi riguarda, ho avuto un incontro con l’onorevole Libicki per discutere di questa vicenda e stasera sono qui un’altra volta per rispondere alle interrogazioni del Parlamento. Questo è il modo in cui la Commissione adempie le proprie responsabilità. La Commissione ha agito decidendo di aprire una procedura d’infrazione, e ha agito nuovamente decidendo di chiudere il caso dopo aver ricevuto una risposta soddisfacente da parte delle autorità del Regno Unito. E’ impegno costante della Commissione rispondere alle interrogazioni del Parlamento al meglio delle proprie capacità. Nella vicenda in questione, tuttavia, si chiede alla Commissione di pronunciarsi sul fatto se uno Stato membro abbia applicato correttamente le norme comunitarie durante un certo periodo di tempo nel passato e nell’ambito di un regime legislativo diverso da quello attuale. La Commissione non può rispondere a questa richiesta perché non si sono concluse le procedure preprocessuali e processuali da cui la sua risposta dipende."@it¹² "Mr President, the Commission believes it has fulfilled its duties under the Treaty. When doubts were raised, the Commission started an investigation and issued a letter of formal notice and a supplementary letter of formal notice. The Commission has answered questions put to it by the Parliament to the best of its ability. My predecessor met with representatives of the Committee on Petitions and answered questions in this Chamber, as well as many written questions. I have met with Mr Libicki to discuss this matter, and am here again this evening to answer Parliament’s questions. This is what accountability on the part of the Commission amounts to. The Commission has acted by deciding to open an infringement procedure and acted again by deciding to close the case when it received a satisfactory answer from the UK authorities. The Commission always endeavours to answer Parliament’s questions to the best of its abilities. In this case, however, the Commission is being asked to pronounce on whether a Member State was in conformity with Community law during a certain period in the past, and under a different legislative regime to that which is now in place. The Commission cannot answer that question because the pre-litigation and litigation proceedings that would have established the answer were not completed."@lt¹⁴ "Mr President, the Commission believes it has fulfilled its duties under the Treaty. When doubts were raised, the Commission started an investigation and issued a letter of formal notice and a supplementary letter of formal notice. The Commission has answered questions put to it by the Parliament to the best of its ability. My predecessor met with representatives of the Committee on Petitions and answered questions in this Chamber, as well as many written questions. I have met with Mr Libicki to discuss this matter, and am here again this evening to answer Parliament’s questions. This is what accountability on the part of the Commission amounts to. The Commission has acted by deciding to open an infringement procedure and acted again by deciding to close the case when it received a satisfactory answer from the UK authorities. The Commission always endeavours to answer Parliament’s questions to the best of its abilities. In this case, however, the Commission is being asked to pronounce on whether a Member State was in conformity with Community law during a certain period in the past, and under a different legislative regime to that which is now in place. The Commission cannot answer that question because the pre-litigation and litigation proceedings that would have established the answer were not completed."@lv¹³ "Mr President, the Commission believes it has fulfilled its duties under the Treaty. When doubts were raised, the Commission started an investigation and issued a letter of formal notice and a supplementary letter of formal notice. The Commission has answered questions put to it by the Parliament to the best of its ability. My predecessor met with representatives of the Committee on Petitions and answered questions in this Chamber, as well as many written questions. I have met with Mr Libicki to discuss this matter, and am here again this evening to answer Parliament’s questions. This is what accountability on the part of the Commission amounts to. The Commission has acted by deciding to open an infringement procedure and acted again by deciding to close the case when it received a satisfactory answer from the UK authorities. The Commission always endeavours to answer Parliament’s questions to the best of its abilities. In this case, however, the Commission is being asked to pronounce on whether a Member State was in conformity with Community law during a certain period in the past, and under a different legislative regime to that which is now in place. The Commission cannot answer that question because the pre-litigation and litigation proceedings that would have established the answer were not completed."@mt¹⁵ "Mijnheer de Voorzitter, de Commissie is van mening dat zij aan haar verplichtingen op grond van het Verdrag heeft voldaan. Toen er twijfels rezen, heeft de Commissie een onderzoek ingesteld en een aanmaningsbrief, alsmede een aanvullende aanmaningsbrief gestuurd. De Commissie heeft de vragen die haar door het Parlement zijn voorgelegd naar beste vermogen beantwoord. Mijn voorganger heeft overlegd met vertegenwoordigers van de Commissie verzoekschriften en in dit Huis antwoord gegeven op vragen, en ook vele schriftelijke vragen beantwoord. Ik heb overleg gepleegd met de heer Libicki over deze zaak en ik ben hier ook deze avond weer om de vragen van het Parlement te beantwoorden. Dit is wat de verantwoordingsplicht van de Commissie inhoudt. De Commissie heeft gehandeld door een inbreukprocedure in te leiden en zij heeft opnieuw gehandeld door de zaak af te sluiten toen zij een antwoord van de Britse autoriteiten ontving dat haar tevreden stelde. De Commissie probeert altijd de vragen van het Parlement zo goed mogelijk te beantwoorden. In dit geval wordt de Commissie echter gevraagd een uitspraak te doen over de vraag of een lidstaat handelde in overeenstemming met communautaire wetgeving gedurende een bepaalde periode in het verleden, toen andere wetgeving van kracht was dan nu. De Commissie kan die vraag niet beantwoorden omdat de precontentieuze procedure en de gerechtelijke procedure die het antwoord daarop zouden hebben gegeven, niet zijn voltooid."@nl³ "Mr President, the Commission believes it has fulfilled its duties under the Treaty. When doubts were raised, the Commission started an investigation and issued a letter of formal notice and a supplementary letter of formal notice. The Commission has answered questions put to it by the Parliament to the best of its ability. My predecessor met with representatives of the Committee on Petitions and answered questions in this Chamber, as well as many written questions. I have met with Mr Libicki to discuss this matter, and am here again this evening to answer Parliament’s questions. This is what accountability on the part of the Commission amounts to. The Commission has acted by deciding to open an infringement procedure and acted again by deciding to close the case when it received a satisfactory answer from the UK authorities. The Commission always endeavours to answer Parliament’s questions to the best of its abilities. In this case, however, the Commission is being asked to pronounce on whether a Member State was in conformity with Community law during a certain period in the past, and under a different legislative regime to that which is now in place. The Commission cannot answer that question because the pre-litigation and litigation proceedings that would have established the answer were not completed."@pl¹⁶ "Senhor Presidente, a Comissão considera que cumpriu os deveres que o Tratado lhe impõe. Quando surgiram dúvidas, a Comissão deu início a uma investigação e escreveu uma carta de notificação e uma outra carta complementar. A Comissão respondeu às perguntas que lhe foram colocadas pelo Parlamento o melhor que pode. O meu antecessor encontrou-se com vários representantes da Comissão das Petições e respondeu às perguntas apresentadas nesta Câmara, bem como a várias perguntas escritas. Encontrei-me com o senhor deputado Libicki para discutir o assunto e estou aqui de novo, esta noite, para responder às perguntas do Parlamento. A responsabilidade da Comissão vai até aqui. A Comissão tomou uma atitude quando decidiu instaurar um processo por incumprimento e voltou a fazê-lo quando decidiu encerrar o processo mediante a resposta satisfatória que recebeu das autoridades do Reino Unido. A Comissão sempre procurou responder às perguntas do Parlamento o melhor que soube. Contudo, neste caso, é pedido à Comissão para se pronunciar sobre a conformidade ou não da actuação de um Estado-Membro com o direito comunitário durante um determinado período de tempo, no passado, e sob um regime legislativo diferente do que está actualmente em vigor. A Comissão não pode responder a essa pergunta, já que o processo de litígio, ou pré-litígio, que teria dado a resposta não foi concluído."@pt¹⁷ "Mr President, the Commission believes it has fulfilled its duties under the Treaty. When doubts were raised, the Commission started an investigation and issued a letter of formal notice and a supplementary letter of formal notice. The Commission has answered questions put to it by the Parliament to the best of its ability. My predecessor met with representatives of the Committee on Petitions and answered questions in this Chamber, as well as many written questions. I have met with Mr Libicki to discuss this matter, and am here again this evening to answer Parliament’s questions. This is what accountability on the part of the Commission amounts to. The Commission has acted by deciding to open an infringement procedure and acted again by deciding to close the case when it received a satisfactory answer from the UK authorities. The Commission always endeavours to answer Parliament’s questions to the best of its abilities. In this case, however, the Commission is being asked to pronounce on whether a Member State was in conformity with Community law during a certain period in the past, and under a different legislative regime to that which is now in place. The Commission cannot answer that question because the pre-litigation and litigation proceedings that would have established the answer were not completed."@sk¹⁸ "Mr President, the Commission believes it has fulfilled its duties under the Treaty. When doubts were raised, the Commission started an investigation and issued a letter of formal notice and a supplementary letter of formal notice. The Commission has answered questions put to it by the Parliament to the best of its ability. My predecessor met with representatives of the Committee on Petitions and answered questions in this Chamber, as well as many written questions. I have met with Mr Libicki to discuss this matter, and am here again this evening to answer Parliament’s questions. This is what accountability on the part of the Commission amounts to. The Commission has acted by deciding to open an infringement procedure and acted again by deciding to close the case when it received a satisfactory answer from the UK authorities. The Commission always endeavours to answer Parliament’s questions to the best of its abilities. In this case, however, the Commission is being asked to pronounce on whether a Member State was in conformity with Community law during a certain period in the past, and under a different legislative regime to that which is now in place. The Commission cannot answer that question because the pre-litigation and litigation proceedings that would have established the answer were not completed."@sl¹⁹ ". Herr talman! Kommissionen anser att den har fullgjort sina skyldigheter i enlighet med fördraget. När misstankar framfördes påbörjade kommissionen en undersökning och utfärdade en formell underrättelse och en kompletterande formell skrivelse. Kommissionen har efter bästa förmåga svarat på frågor som parlamentet har ställt till den. Min företrädare träffade företrädare för utskottet för framställningar och svarade på frågor här i parlamentet liksom på många skriftliga frågor. Jag har träffat Marcin Libicki för att diskutera den här frågan, och jag är här i kväll igen för att svara på parlamentets frågor. Detta är vad ansvarighet från kommissionens sida innebär. Kommissionen har agerat genom att inleda ett överträdelseförfarande, och den har åter agerat genom att besluta att avsluta fallet när den fick ett nöjaktigt svar från myndigheterna i Förenade kungariket. Kommissionen strävar alltid efter att svara på parlamentets frågor efter bästa förmåga. Men i det här fallet har kommissionen ombetts att uttala sig om huruvida en medlemsstat rättade sig efter gemenskapsrätten under en viss tidigare period och under ett annat rättssystem än det som nu är i kraft. Kommissionen kan inte svara på den frågan eftersom de administrativa och rättsliga förfaranden som skulle ha gett svaret inte avslutades."@sv²¹
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Charlie McCreevy,"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,10,2,13,4} "EN"^10,2 "Member of the Commission"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,13,4} "medlem af Kommissionen"² "μέλος της Επιτροπής"¹⁰