Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-26-Speech-1-110"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2005-09-26"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Raamatupidamise ja konsolideeritud aastaaruannete kohustuslik auditeerimine⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050926.15.1-110"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-09-26-Speech-1-111⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Charlie McCreevy⁶
lpv:spoken text	". Mr President, I would like to thank Bert Doorn, and the Legal Affairs Committee, for the excellent work done on this dossier. Efficient cooperation between the institutions should make it possible to adopt this proposal in a single reading. Statutory audit is a very important subject for Europe. Recent scandals highlighted the need to reply to new challenges. In order to modernise statutory audit, the revised directive will clarify the duties of statutory auditors, their independence and their ethics. It will also require the application of international standards on auditing and will set the criteria for robust public oversight of the audit profession. We must have proper auditors in the EU. This benefits everyone: the companies themselves, investors and savers, both large and small. Economic confidence will grow. Let me just say a few words on the question of limiting auditor liability. This question has arisen during debates on this directive, although it was not in the Commission’s original proposal. Auditors are wary of taking on new audits because they are afraid of unlimited liability. I can see the arguments in favour of acting at EU level, as there could potentially be an impact on the internal market. I intend to work actively to see what can be done in this regard. As a first step, I intend to launch a study in the near future. The proposed amendments take account of the discussions in the Council, and also enjoy strong support from the audit industry. The solutions proposed by your rapporteur are, furthermore, well balanced and respect the Commission’s initial intentions with this legislation. So we strongly support the outcome. As was the case with the previous report that we discussed, comitology is once again the only outstanding issue. The situation is very similar to what was said in the context of Mr Radwan’s report on the capital requirements directive just a few moments ago. I refer to the statements I made in that context so I do not need to repeat myself. Implementing powers are very important for the eighth company law directive. Many technical issues and adaptations require the availability of comitology powers. This was also confirmed by the Council when it expressed its support for the overall compromise package of amendments. The Committee of Permanent Representatives considered that a sunset clause under which the implementing powers would be suspended could harm the effective implementation of this directive. It therefore asked Parliament to consider the implications of such a sunset clause carefully. The Commission shares the concerns expressed by the Council. Yet it also recognises Parliament’s view that its role in supervising the exercise of delegated authority must be brought in line with its standing in the codecision procedure. Pending an overall solution for comitology, the Commission understands that Parliament would wish to limit the delegated authority in time. For the Commission it is essential that this period be long enough to ensure proper implementation of the directive. I understand that your rapporteur would propose a sunset clause of two years after the entry into force of the directive, but 1 April 2008 at the latest. This would not, however, apply to Article 26, on international auditing standards. The Commission can agree with this. This solution would correspond with the solution found in Mr Radwan's report on the proposed capital requirements directive. The Commission also calls on the Council to show flexibility, but above all to consider the revision of the 1999 comitology decision as a priority."@en⁴
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I would like to thank Bert Doorn, and the Legal Affairs Committee, for the excellent work done on this dossier. Efficient cooperation between the institutions should make it possible to adopt this proposal in a single reading. Statutory audit is a very important subject for Europe. Recent scandals highlighted the need to reply to new challenges. In order to modernise statutory audit, the revised directive will clarify the duties of statutory auditors, their independence and their ethics. It will also require the application of international standards on auditing and will set the criteria for robust public oversight of the audit profession. We must have proper auditors in the EU. This benefits everyone: the companies themselves, investors and savers, both large and small. Economic confidence will grow. Let me just say a few words on the question of limiting auditor liability. This question has arisen during debates on this directive, although it was not in the Commission’s original proposal. Auditors are wary of taking on new audits because they are afraid of unlimited liability. I can see the arguments in favour of acting at EU level, as there could potentially be an impact on the internal market. I intend to work actively to see what can be done in this regard. As a first step, I intend to launch a study in the near future. The proposed amendments take account of the discussions in the Council, and also enjoy strong support from the audit industry. The solutions proposed by your rapporteur are, furthermore, well balanced and respect the Commission’s initial intentions with this legislation. So we strongly support the outcome. As was the case with the previous report that we discussed, comitology is once again the only outstanding issue. The situation is very similar to what was said in the context of Mr Radwan’s report on the capital requirements directive just a few moments ago. I refer to the statements I made in that context so I do not need to repeat myself. Implementing powers are very important for the eighth company law directive. Many technical issues and adaptations require the availability of comitology powers. This was also confirmed by the Council when it expressed its support for the overall compromise package of amendments. The Committee of Permanent Representatives considered that a sunset clause under which the implementing powers would be suspended could harm the effective implementation of this directive. It therefore asked Parliament to consider the implications of such a sunset clause carefully. The Commission shares the concerns expressed by the Council. Yet it also recognises Parliament’s view that its role in supervising the exercise of delegated authority must be brought in line with its standing in the codecision procedure. Pending an overall solution for comitology, the Commission understands that Parliament would wish to limit the delegated authority in time. For the Commission it is essential that this period be long enough to ensure proper implementation of the directive. I understand that your rapporteur would propose a sunset clause of two years after the entry into force of the directive, but 1 April 2008 at the latest. This would not, however, apply to Article 26, on international auditing standards. The Commission can agree with this. This solution would correspond with the solution found in Mr Radwan's report on the proposed capital requirements directive. The Commission also calls on the Council to show flexibility, but above all to consider the revision of the 1999 comitology decision as a priority."@cs¹ "Hr. formand, jeg vil gerne indledningsvis takke Bert Doorn og Retsudvalget for den glimrende indsats, der er gjort i denne sag. Det effektive samarbejde mellem institutionerne burde gøre det muligt at vedtage dette forslag under førstebehandlingen. Spørgsmålet om lovpligtig revision er meget vigtigt for Europa. Med den seneste tids skandaler understreges det, at det er nødvendigt at imødegå de nye udfordringer. Med henblik på at modernisere den lovpligtige revision vil det reviderede direktiv tydeliggøre revisors pligter, uafhængighed og arbejdsetik. Direktivet indeholder bestemmelser om gennemførelse af internationale revisionsstandarder, og der fastsættes kriterier for et konsekvent, offentligt tilsyn med revisorerhvervet. Vi skal have gode revisorer i EU. Dette er til alles fordel: de pågældende selskaber, investorer og opsparere, hvad enten disse er store eller små. Tilliden til økonomien vil blive styrket. Lad mig blot komme med et par bemærkninger til spørgsmålet om begrænsning af revisorers erstatningsansvar. Dette spørgsmål er dukket op under drøftelserne af dette direktiv, selv om det ikke var anført i Kommissionens oprindelige forslag. Revisorer er på vagt, når de står over for at skulle påtage sig nye revisionsopgaver, idet de er bange for det ubegrænsede erstatningsansvar. Jeg forstår argumenterne for at handle på EU-plan, idet dette potentielt vil kunne indvirke på det indre marked. Jeg agter at gøre en aktiv indsats for at finde ud af, hvad der kan gøres i denne forbindelse. I første omgang vil jeg i nær fremtid iværksætte en undersøgelse. Der er i de stillede ændringsforslag taget hensyn til drøftelserne i Rådet, og de støttes også fuldt ud af revisionssektoren. De løsninger, der foreslås af ordføreren, er derudover afbalancerede, og Kommissionens oprindelige hensigter med denne lovgivning respekteres. Vi støtter således fuldt ud ændringsforslagene. Som det også var tilfældet i forbindelse med den forrige betænkning, er komitologispørgsmålet igen det eneste uafklarede spørgsmål. Situationen ligner i høj grad den, der blev skitseret i forbindelse med hr. Radwans betænkning om kapitalkravsdirektivet lige før. Jeg henviser til de bemærkninger, jeg kom med i denne forbindelse, således at jeg ikke behøver at gentage mig selv. Gennemførelsesbeføjelserne spiller en vigtig rolle i det ottende virksomhedsdirektiv. Som følge af de mange tekniske spørgsmål og tilpasninger er komitologibeføjelserne ganske nødvendige. Dette blev også understreget af Rådet, da Rådet gav sin støtte til de samlede ændringsforslag. De Faste Repræsentanters Komité var af den opfattelse, at en solnedgangsklausul, hvor gennemførelsesbeføjelserne ville blive suspenderet, kunne skade den effektive gennemførelse af direktivet. Således blev Parlamentet bedt om nøje at overveje konsekvenserne af en sådan solnedgangsklausul. Kommissionen er enig i de bekymringer, som Rådet har udtrykt. Kommissionen anerkender ikke desto mindre samtidig Parlamentets synspunkt vedrørende dets rolle i forbindelse med overvågningen af udøvelsen af uddelegerede beføjelser, en rolle, som Parlamentet ønsker bragt i overensstemmelse med dets rolle i den fælles beslutningsprocedure. Så længe der ikke er fundet frem til en generel løsning på komitologispørgsmålet, har Kommissionen forståelse for, at Parlamentet ønsker at begrænse de uddelegerede beføjelser rent tidsmæssigt. Det er af afgørende betydning for Kommissionen, at denne periode er tilstrækkelig lang, således at direktivet kan gennemføres effektivt. Jeg forstår, at ordføreren foreslår en solnedgangsklausul, der træder i kraft to år efter direktivets ikrafttrædelse, dog senest den 1. april 2008. Denne klausul vil imidlertid ikke finde anvendelse på artikel 26 om internationale revisionsstandarder. Kommissionen vil være indforstået hermed. Denne løsning svarer til den løsning, der er angivet i hr. Radwans betænkning om det foreslåede kapitalkravsdirektiv. Kommissionen anmoder også Rådet om at være fleksibel, men først og fremmest om at prioritere en ændring af komitologiafgørelsen fra 1999."@da² "Herr Präsident! Ich möchte Bert Doorn und dem Rechtsausschuss für die exzellente Arbeit zu diesem Thema danken. Die effiziente Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Institutionen sollte es ermöglichen, dass dieser Vorschlag in einer einzigen Lesung angenommen wird. Die Prüfung des Jahresabschlusses ist ein sehr wichtiges Thema für Europa. Die jüngsten Skandale haben gezeigt, dass auf die neuen Herausforderungen reagiert werden muss. Um die Abschlussprüfung zeitgemäßer zu gestalten, werden in der überarbeiteten Richtlinie die Pflichten von Abschlussprüfern, ihre Unabhängigkeit und ihre ethischen Leitlinien klarer festgelegt. Sie wird auch die Anwendung internationaler Prüfungsgrundsätze vorschreiben und Kriterien für eine strenge öffentliche Beaufsichtigung der Wirtschaftsprüferbranche festlegen. Wir brauchen zuverlässige Prüfer in der EU. Davon profitieren alle: die Unternehmen selbst, die Investoren und die Sparer, sowohl die großen als auch die kleinen. Das Vertrauen in die Wirtschaft wird wachsen. Lassen Sie mich nur kurz einige Bemerkungen zur Beschränkung der Haftung von Abschlussprüfern machen. Diese Frage ist während der Debatten über diese Richtlinie aufgetreten, obwohl sie im ursprünglichen Vorschlag der Kommission nicht behandelt wurde. Abschlussprüfer übernehmen nur ungern neue Prüfungsaufträge, weil sie die uneingeschränkte Haftung fürchten. Ich kann die Argumente für ein Vorgehen auf EU-Ebene nachvollziehen, da es hier eventuell Auswirkungen auf den Binnenmarkt geben könnte. Ich werde auf jeden Fall herauszufinden versuchen, was in dieser Hinsicht unternommen werden kann. Als ersten Schritt beabsichtige ich, in naher Zukunft eine Studie in Auftrag zu geben. Die vorgeschlagenen Änderungen tragen den Beratungen im Rat Rechnung und genießen auch große Unterstützung in der Wirtschaftsprüferbranche. Die von Ihrem Berichterstatter vorgeschlagenen Lösungen sind außerdem sehr ausgewogen und berücksichtigen die ursprünglichen Absichten der Kommission für diese Rechtsvorschriften. Deshalb befürworten wir nachdrücklich dieses Ergebnis. Wie beim vorangegangenen Bericht, über den wir beraten haben, ist auch hier die Komitologie die einzige noch offene Frage. Es verhält sich hier sehr ähnlich wie bei dem soeben besprochenen Bericht von Herrn Radwan über die Richtlinie über Eigenkapitalanforderungen. Ich verweise hier auf meine in diesem Zusammenhang gemachten Ausführungen und muss mich deshalb nicht wiederholen. Durchführungsbefugnisse sind für die Achte Gesellschaftsrechtsrichtlinie sehr wichtig. Für viele technische Fragen und Anpassungen müssen Komitologiemaßnahmen zur Verfügung stehen. Dies wurde auch von Rat bestätigt, als er seine Unterstützung für das komplette Bündel von Kompromissänderungsanträgen zum Ausdruck brachte. Der Ausschuss der Ständigen Vertreter vertrat die Auffassung, dass eine Sunset-Klausel, mit der die Durchführungsbefugnisse ausgesetzt würden, eine wirksame Durchführung dieser Richtlinie behindern könnte. Er bat daher das Parlament, die Auswirkungen einer solchen Sunset-Klausel sorgfältig zu erwägen. Die Kommission teilt die vom Rat zum Ausdruck gebrachte Besorgnis. Gleichzeitig akzeptiert sie die Auffassung des Parlaments, dass seine Rolle bei der Überwachung der Ausübung übertragener Befugnisse mit seinem Status im Mitentscheidungsverfahren in Einklang gebracht werden muss. Die Kommission geht davon aus, dass das Parlament – solange eine Gesamtlösung für die Komitologie noch aussteht – die übertragenen Befugnisse möglichst rasch beschränken möchte. Für die Kommission ist entscheidend, dass dieser Zeitraum lang genug ist, um eine ordnungsgemäße Umsetzung der Richtlinie zu gewährleisten. Ich verstehe, dass Ihr Berichterstatter eine Sunset-Klausel vorschlägt, die zwei Jahre nach Inkrafttreten der Richtlinie, spätestens jedoch am 1. April 2008 greift. Dies würde allerdings nicht für Artikel 26 über internationale Prüfungsgrundsätze gelten. Dem kann die Kommission zustimmen. Diese Lösung würde der Lösung entsprechen, die man im Bericht von Herrn Radwan zu der vorgeschlagenen Eigenkapitalrichtlinie findet. Die Kommission fordert zudem den Rat auf, sich flexibel zu zeigen, vor allem aber eine Überarbeitung des Komitologiebeschlusses von 1999 vorrangig zu prüfen."@de⁹ "Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα να ευχαριστήσω τον Bert Doorn και την Επιτροπή Νομικών Θεμάτων για το εξαίρετο έργο που επιτέλεσαν σε σχέση με αυτόν τον φάκελο. Η αποτελεσματική συνεργασία μεταξύ των θεσμικών οργάνων θα καταστήσει λογικά δυνατή την υιοθέτηση αυτής της πρότασης σε μία μόνο ανάγνωση. Ο υποχρεωτικός έλεγχος είναι ένα πολύ σημαντικό θέμα για την Ευρώπη. Πρόσφατα σκάνδαλα τόνισαν την ανάγκη να ανταποκριθούμε σε νέες προκλήσεις. Για να εκσυγχρονίσει τον υποχρεωτικό έλεγχο, η αναθεωρημένη οδηγία θα διευκρινίσει τα καθήκοντα των νομίμων ελεγκτών, την ανεξαρτησία και τη δεοντολογία τους. Θα επιβάλει επίσης την εφαρμογή των διεθνών ελεγκτικών προτύπων και θα θέσει τα κριτήρια για την αυστηρή δημόσια εποπτεία του ελεγκτικού επαγγέλματος. Πρέπει να έχουμε σωστούς ελεγκτές στην ΕΕ. Αυτό ωφελεί τους πάντες: τις ίδιες τις εταιρείες, τους επενδυτές και τους αποταμιευτές, μεγάλους και μικρούς. Θα αυξηθεί η εμπιστοσύνη στην οικονομία. Θα ήθελα να πω δύο λόγια για το θέμα του περιορισμού της ευθύνης των ελεγκτών. Το θέμα αυτό ανέκυψε κατά τις συζητήσεις για αυτήν την οδηγία, παρόλο που δεν συμπεριλαμβανόταν στην αρχική πρόταση της Επιτροπής. Οι ελεγκτές διστάζουν να αναλάβουν νέους ελέγχους, γιατί φοβούνται την απεριόριστη ευθύνη. Αντιλαμβάνομαι τα επιχειρήματα υπέρ της δράσης σε επίπεδο ΕΕ, καθώς θα μπορούσε δυνητικά να υπάρχει αντίκτυπος στην εσωτερική αγορά. Σκοπεύω να εργαστώ ενεργά για να δω τι μπορεί να γίνει σχετικά. Ως πρώτο βήμα, σκοπεύω να ξεκινήσω μια μελέτη στο εγγύς μέλλον. Οι προτεινόμενες τροπολογίες λαμβάνουν υπόψη τις συζητήσεις που έγιναν στο Συμβούλιο και έχουν επίσης την έντονη υποστήριξη του ελεγκτικού κλάδου. Επιπλέον, οι λύσεις που προτάθηκαν από τον εισηγητή σας είναι ισορροπημένες και σέβονται τις αρχικές προθέσεις της Επιτροπής σχετικά με αυτήν τη νομοθεσία. Έτσι, υποστηρίζουμε έντονα το αποτέλεσμα. Όπως συνέβη και με την προηγούμενη έκθεση που συζητήσαμε, η επιτροπολογία είναι για άλλη μία φορά το μόνο θέμα που εκκρεμεί. Η κατάσταση μοιάζει πολύ με αυτό που ειπώθηκε πριν από λίγο σχετικά με την έκθεσή του κ. Radwan για την οδηγία περί κεφαλαιακών απαιτήσεων. Αναφέρομαι στις δηλώσεις που έκανα σε αυτό το πλαίσιο, οπότε δεν χρειάζεται να επαναλάβω τα λόγια μου. Οι εκτελεστικές αρμοδιότητες είναι πολύ σημαντικές για την όγδοη οδηγία περί δικαίου των εταιρειών. Πολλά τεχνικά ζητήματα και προσαρμογές απαιτούν τη διαθεσιμότητα αρμοδιοτήτων επιτροπολογίας. Αυτό επιβεβαιώθηκε και από το Συμβούλιο, όταν εξέφρασε την υποστήριξή του για όλη τη συμβιβαστική δέσμη τροπολογιών. Η Επιτροπή Μονίμων Αντιπροσώπων θεώρησε ότι μια ρήτρα λήξης ισχύος, σύμφωνα με την οποία θα αναστέλλονταν οι εκτελεστικές αρμοδιότητες, θα μπορούσε να βλάψει την αποτελεσματική εφαρμογή αυτής της οδηγίας. Ζήτησε, συνεπώς, από το Κοινοβούλιο να εξετάσει προσεκτικά τις επιπτώσεις μιας τέτοιας ρήτρας. Η Επιτροπή συμμερίζεται τις ανησυχίες που εξέφρασε το Συμβούλιο. Αναγνωρίζει, όμως, και την άποψη του Κοινοβουλίου ότι ο ρόλος του στην εποπτεία της άσκησης των εκχωρημένων εξουσιών πρέπει να συμφωνεί με τη θέση του στη διαδικασία συναπόφασης. Καθώς εκκρεμεί μια γενική λύση για την επιτροπολογία, η Επιτροπή κατανοεί ότι το Κοινοβούλιο θα ήθελε να περιορίσει έγκαιρα τις εκχωρημένες εξουσίες. Για την Επιτροπή είναι εξαιρετικά σημαντικό να διαρκέσει αυτή η περίοδος αρκετά, ώστε να διασφαλιστεί η σωστή εφαρμογή της οδηγίας. Καταλαβαίνω ότι ο εισηγητής σας θα πρότεινε μια ρήτρα λήξης ισχύος δύο έτη μετά την έναρξη ισχύος της οδηγίας, αλλά το αργότερο μέχρι την 1 Απριλίου 2008. Η ρήτρα αυτή, ωστόσο, δεν θα ισχύει για το άρθρο 26, που αφορά τα διεθνή ελεγκτικά πρότυπα. Η Επιτροπή μπορεί να συμφωνήσει με αυτό. Η λύση αυτή θα ήταν αντίστοιχη με τη λύση που βρέθηκε στην έκθεση του κ. Radwan για την πρόταση οδηγίας περί κεφαλαιακών απαιτήσεων. Η Επιτροπή ζητεί επίσης από το Συμβούλιο να δείξει ευελιξία αλλά, προπαντός, να θεωρήσει προτεραιότητα την αναθεώρηση της απόφασης του 1999 για την επιτροπολογία."@el¹⁰ ". Señor Presidente, quiero dar las gracias al señor Doorn y a la Comisión de Asuntos Jurídicos por la excelente labor que han hecho en este expediente. Una colaboración eficiente entre las instituciones debería permitir adoptar esta propuesta en una única lectura. La auditoría legal de las cuentas anuales es un tema de gran importancia para Europa. Algunos escándalos recientes han puesto de relieve la necesidad de responder a nuevos desafíos. A fin de modernizar la auditoría legal, la Directiva revisada clarificará las obligaciones de los auditores, su independencia y su ética. Para ello será necesario igualmente aplicar las normas internacionales en materia de auditoría y establecer criterios para la creación de una sólida supervisión pública de la profesión de la auditoría. Debemos contar con buenos auditores en la UE, pues es en beneficio de todos, de las propias empresas, de los inversores y ahorradores, tanto grandes como pequeños. Y de este modo aumentará la confianza económica. Permítanme decir unas cuantas palabras sobre la limitación de la responsabilidad de los auditores. Esta cuestión ha surgido durante los debates sobre esta Directiva, aunque no figuraba en la propuesta original de la Comisión. Los auditores se muestran precavidos antes de realizar nuevas auditorías por que tienen miedo de asumir una responsabilidad ilimitada. Soy consciente de las ventajas de actuar a nivel de la UE, pues podría tener consecuencias para el mercado interior. Tengo la intención de trabajar activamente par ver lo que puede hacerse a este respecto. Como primer paso encargaré en breve un estudio. Las enmiendas propuestas tienen en cuenta los debates celebrados en el Consejo, y cuentan con el firme apoyo del sector de la auditoría. Las soluciones que propone el ponente resultan, además, equilibradas y respetan las intenciones iniciales de la Comisión para este acto legislativo. Así pues, apoyamos firmemente el resultado. Al igual que con el informe precedente, la comitología constituye una vez más el único tema pendiente. La situación es muy similar a lo que se ha dicho hace unos momentos en el marco del informe del señor Radwan acerca de la Directiva sobre la adecuación del capital. Me remito a las declaraciones que hice en ese contexto, a fin de no tener que repetirme. Las competencias de ejecución son muy importantes para la Octava Directiva sobre el derecho de sociedades. Numerosas cuestiones técnicas y adaptaciones exigen la existencia de competencias en materia de comitología. Así lo confirmó el Consejo cuando manifestó su apoyo al compromiso general sobre el paquete de enmiendas. El Comité de Representantes Permanentes consideró que una cláusula de suspensión que pudiera suspender los poderes de ejecución podría ser perjudicial para una aplicación eficaz de esta Directiva. Por ello pedí al Parlamento que considerara detenidamente las consecuencias de dicha cláusula de suspensión. La Comisión comparte las inquietudes expresadas por el Consejo. No obstante, también reconoce que el Parlamento tiene razón cuando señala que su papel dentro de la supervisión del ejercicio de la autoridad delegada debe adaptarse a su posición dentro del procedimiento de codecisión. A la espera de una solución global par la cuestión de la comitología, la Comisión comprende que el Parlamento desee limitar a tiempo la autoridad delegada. Para la Comisión es indispensable que dicho período tenga una duración suficiente para aplicar correctamente la Directiva. Tengo entendido que el ponente propondrá una cláusula de suspensión de dos años a partir de la entrada en vigor de la Directiva y a más tardar el 1 de abril de 2008. Sin embargo, dicha cláusula no se aplicaría al artículo 26 relativo a las normas internacionales en materia de auditoría. La Comisión puede aceptarlo. Esta solución concordaría con la solución que figura en el informe del señor Radwan sobre la propuesta de Directiva sobre la adecuación del capital. Asimismo, la Comisión pide al Consejo que se muestre flexible, pero sobre todo que considere prioritaria la revisión de la Decisión sobre la comitología de 1999."@es²⁰ "Mr President, I would like to thank Bert Doorn, and the Legal Affairs Committee, for the excellent work done on this dossier. Efficient cooperation between the institutions should make it possible to adopt this proposal in a single reading. Statutory audit is a very important subject for Europe. Recent scandals highlighted the need to reply to new challenges. In order to modernise statutory audit, the revised directive will clarify the duties of statutory auditors, their independence and their ethics. It will also require the application of international standards on auditing and will set the criteria for robust public oversight of the audit profession. We must have proper auditors in the EU. This benefits everyone: the companies themselves, investors and savers, both large and small. Economic confidence will grow. Let me just say a few words on the question of limiting auditor liability. This question has arisen during debates on this directive, although it was not in the Commission’s original proposal. Auditors are wary of taking on new audits because they are afraid of unlimited liability. I can see the arguments in favour of acting at EU level, as there could potentially be an impact on the internal market. I intend to work actively to see what can be done in this regard. As a first step, I intend to launch a study in the near future. The proposed amendments take account of the discussions in the Council, and also enjoy strong support from the audit industry. The solutions proposed by your rapporteur are, furthermore, well balanced and respect the Commission’s initial intentions with this legislation. So we strongly support the outcome. As was the case with the previous report that we discussed, comitology is once again the only outstanding issue. The situation is very similar to what was said in the context of Mr Radwan’s report on the capital requirements directive just a few moments ago. I refer to the statements I made in that context so I do not need to repeat myself. Implementing powers are very important for the eighth company law directive. Many technical issues and adaptations require the availability of comitology powers. This was also confirmed by the Council when it expressed its support for the overall compromise package of amendments. The Committee of Permanent Representatives considered that a sunset clause under which the implementing powers would be suspended could harm the effective implementation of this directive. It therefore asked Parliament to consider the implications of such a sunset clause carefully. The Commission shares the concerns expressed by the Council. Yet it also recognises Parliament’s view that its role in supervising the exercise of delegated authority must be brought in line with its standing in the codecision procedure. Pending an overall solution for comitology, the Commission understands that Parliament would wish to limit the delegated authority in time. For the Commission it is essential that this period be long enough to ensure proper implementation of the directive. I understand that your rapporteur would propose a sunset clause of two years after the entry into force of the directive, but 1 April 2008 at the latest. This would not, however, apply to Article 26, on international auditing standards. The Commission can agree with this. This solution would correspond with the solution found in Mr Radwan's report on the proposed capital requirements directive. The Commission also calls on the Council to show flexibility, but above all to consider the revision of the 1999 comitology decision as a priority."@et⁵ ". Arvoisa puhemies, haluan kiittää Bert Doornia ja oikeudellisten asioiden valiokuntaa tämän asian parissa tehdystä erinomaisesta työstä. Toimielinten tehdessä tehokasta yhteistyötä tämä ehdotus pitäisi voida hyväksyä ensimmäisessä käsittelyssä. Lakisääteinen tilintarkastus on Euroopan kannalta sangen tärkeä asia. Tuoreet skandaalit ovat korostaneet uusiin haasteisiin vastaamisen tarpeellisuutta. Lakisääteisen tilintarkastuksen uudenaikaistamiseksi direktiiviin tehtävillä muutoksilla selvennetään tilintarkastajien tehtäviä, heidän riippumattomuuttaan ja heidän eettisyyttään. Lisäksi direktiivissä edellytetään tilintarkastusta koskevien kansainvälisten standardien soveltamista, ja siinä asetetaan kriteerit tilintarkastusyhteisöjen tiukalle julkiselle valvonnalle. EU tarvitsee päteviä tilintarkastajia. Tämä hyödyttää kaikkia: yrityksiä, sijoittajia sekä suursäästäjiä ja piensäästäjiä. Tämä kasvattaa luottamusta talouteen. Mainitsen seuraavaksi muutaman sanan tilintarkastajien vastuun rajoittamisesta. Kysymys on herännyt tästä direktiivistä käytyjen keskustelujen aikana, vaikka asia ei sisältynyt komission alkuperäiseen ehdotukseen. Tilintarkastajat suhtautuvat varautuneesti uusien tilintarkastuksien vastaan ottamiseen, koska he pelkäävät rajoittamatonta vastuuvelvollisuutta. Ymmärrän, minkä vuoksi EU:n tasoisten toimien puolesta on esitetty vakuutteluja, koska vaikutukset voivat kohdistua myös sisämarkkinoihin. Pyrin aktiivisesti selvittämään, mitä tässä asiassa on tehtävissä. Ensimmäisenä toimenani aion käynnistää lähiaikoina selvityksen asiasta. Esitetyissä tarkistuksissa otetaan huomioon neuvostossa käydyt keskustelut, ja tarkistuksilla on myös tilintarkastusalan vahva tuki. Esittelijänne ehdottamat ratkaisut ovat lisäksi hyvin tasapainoisia ja komission tälle direktiiville alun perin asettamien tavoitteiden mukaisia. Näin ollen tuemme lopputulosta voimakkaasti. Komitologia on jälleen ainoa avoinna oleva kysymys. Näinhän oli myös edellisessä mietinnössä, josta keskustelimme. Tilanne on hyvin samanlainen kuin tilanne, jota äsken käsittelimme esittelijä Radwanin vakavaraisuusdirektiiviä koskevan mietinnön yhteydessä. Viittaan siihen, mitä tästä asiasta edellä totesin, joten minun ei tarvitse toistaa itseäni. Kahdeksannessa yhtiöoikeutta koskevassa direktiivissä täytäntöönpanovalta on hyvin tärkeä asia. Monet tekniset kysymykset ja mukautukset edellyttävät komitologiavaltuuksien käyttämistä. Myös neuvosto vahvisti tämän ilmoittaessaan tukevansa tarkistukset sisältävää kokonaiskompromissia. Pysyvien edustajien komitea katsoi, että peruuntumislauseke, jonka perusteella täytäntöönpanovalta raukeaisi, haittaisi direktiivin tehokasta täytäntöönpanoa. Tämän vuoksi komitea kehotti parlamenttia harkitsemaan huolellisesti tällaisen peruuntumislausekkeen vaikutuksia. Komissio yhtyy neuvoston huolenaiheisiin. Toisaalta komissio kunnioittaa myös parlamentin kantaa, jonka mukaan parlamentilla on oltava siirretyn toimivallan käytön valvonnassa sama asema kuin yhteispäätösmenettelyssä. Koska komitologiaan liittyvä kokonaisratkaisu on tekemättä, komissio ymmärtää, että parlamentti haluaa rajoittaa ajallisesti valtaoikeuksien siirtoa. Komission mielestä on olennaisen tärkeää, että aikaa on riittävästi direktiivin asianmukaisen täytäntöönpanon varmistamiseksi. Ymmärrän, että esittelijänne ehdottaa peruuntumislauseketta, joka tulisi voimaan kahden vuoden kuluttua direktiivin voimaantulosta ja viimeistään 1. huhtikuuta 2008. Tämä ei kuitenkaan koskisi kansainvälisiin tilintarkastusstandardeihin liittyvää 26 artiklaa. Komissio voi hyväksyä tämän. Ratkaisu vastaisi jäsen Radwanin vakavaraisuusdirektiiviä koskevassa mietinnössä ehdottamaa ratkaisua. Lisäksi komissio kehottaa neuvostoa suhtautumaan asiaan joustavasti ja ennen kaikkea pitämään vuoden 1999 komitologiapäätöksen tarkistamista ensisijaisena asiana."@fi⁷ ". Monsieur le Président, je tiens à remercier Bert Doorn, ainsi que la commission des affaires juridiques, pour l’excellent travail accompli sur ce dossier. Une coopération efficace entre les institutions devrait permettre l’adoption de cette proposition en première lecture. Le contrôle légal des comptes est un thème crucial pour l’Europe. Les récents scandales ont mis en évidence la nécessité de relever de nouveaux défis. Afin de moderniser le contrôle légal, la directive révisée fournira des éclaircissements quant aux tâches, à l’indépendance et à l’éthique des contrôleurs légaux. Elle exigera également l’application de normes d’audit internationales et établira des critères stricts de supervision publique des professionnels de l’expertise comptable. L’UE doit disposer de contrôleurs dignes de ce nom, et ce dans l’intérêt de tout le monde: des sociétés elles-mêmes, les investisseurs et les épargnants, qu’ils soient grands ou petits. La confiance économique s’en verra renforcée. Permettez-moi de faire quelques remarques concernant la limitation de la responsabilité des contrôleurs. Cette question a été soulevée au cours des débats sur cette directive, alors qu’elle ne se retrouvait pas dans la proposition initiale de la Commission. Les contrôleurs hésitent beaucoup à accepter de nouveaux contrôles, car ils craignent la responsabilité illimitée. Je peux comprendre les arguments en faveur d’une intervention au niveau de l’UE dans la mesure où il pourrait y avoir un impact sur le marché intérieur. J’ai l’intention de travailler activement sur les actions qui peuvent être entreprises à cet égard. Ma première mesure sera de lancer une étude dans un avenir proche. Les amendements proposés prennent en considération les discussions menées au Conseil et bénéficient d’un large soutien au sein du secteur du contrôle des comptes. Qui plus est, les solutions avancées par votre rapporteur sont équilibrées et vont dans le sens des intentions initiales de la Commission au sujet de cette législation. Nous sommes donc très favorables au résultat produit. Comme ce fut le cas avec le précédent rapport dont nous avons discuté, la question de la comitologie reste une fois de plus en suspens. La situation est fortement semblable à ce qui vient d’être dit dans le cadre du rapport de M. Radwan sur la directive relative à l’adéquation des fonds propres. J’éviterai de me répéter en vous renvoyant aux déclarations que j’ai faites à cet égard. Les pouvoirs de mise en œuvre son très importants pour la huitième directive sur le droit des sociétés. De nombreuses questions techniques et adaptations requièrent la disponibilité de pouvoirs de comitologie. C’est ce qu’a confirmé également le Conseil en exprimant son soutien en faveur du paquet global d’amendements de compromis. Le Comité des représentants permanents a estimé qu’une clause-couperet qui suspendrait les compétences d’exécution pourrait nuire à la mise en œuvre effective de cette directive. Voilà pourquoi j’ai demandé au Parlement d’étudier avec attention les implications que pourrait avoir une telle clause-couperet. La Commission partage les préoccupations exprimées par le Conseil. Elle partage également l’avis du Parlement selon lequel elle doit faire coïncider son rôle de supervision de l’exercice d’autorité déléguée avec son rôle dans la procédure de codécision. Une solution générale pour la comitologie étant en suspens, la Commission comprend que le Parlement souhaite limiter l’autorité déléguée dans le temps. D’après la Commission, il est essentiel que cette période soit suffisamment longue pour garantir une mise en œuvre effective de la directive. J’ai cru comprendre que votre rapporteur voulait proposer une clause-couperet de deux ans après l’entrée en vigueur de la directive, mais pas plus tard que le 1er avril 2008. Cette clause ne s’appliquerait toutefois pas à l’article 26 sur les normes d’audit internationales. La Commission est d’accord avec ce point. Cette solution correspondrait à celle trouvée dans le rapport de M. Radwan sur la proposition de directive relative à l’adéquation des fonds propres. La Commission demande également au Conseil de faire preuve de flexibilité et, surtout, de considérer la révision de la procédure de comitologie de 1999 comme une priorité."@fr⁸ "Mr President, I would like to thank Bert Doorn, and the Legal Affairs Committee, for the excellent work done on this dossier. Efficient cooperation between the institutions should make it possible to adopt this proposal in a single reading. Statutory audit is a very important subject for Europe. Recent scandals highlighted the need to reply to new challenges. In order to modernise statutory audit, the revised directive will clarify the duties of statutory auditors, their independence and their ethics. It will also require the application of international standards on auditing and will set the criteria for robust public oversight of the audit profession. We must have proper auditors in the EU. This benefits everyone: the companies themselves, investors and savers, both large and small. Economic confidence will grow. Let me just say a few words on the question of limiting auditor liability. This question has arisen during debates on this directive, although it was not in the Commission’s original proposal. Auditors are wary of taking on new audits because they are afraid of unlimited liability. I can see the arguments in favour of acting at EU level, as there could potentially be an impact on the internal market. I intend to work actively to see what can be done in this regard. As a first step, I intend to launch a study in the near future. The proposed amendments take account of the discussions in the Council, and also enjoy strong support from the audit industry. The solutions proposed by your rapporteur are, furthermore, well balanced and respect the Commission’s initial intentions with this legislation. So we strongly support the outcome. As was the case with the previous report that we discussed, comitology is once again the only outstanding issue. The situation is very similar to what was said in the context of Mr Radwan’s report on the capital requirements directive just a few moments ago. I refer to the statements I made in that context so I do not need to repeat myself. Implementing powers are very important for the eighth company law directive. Many technical issues and adaptations require the availability of comitology powers. This was also confirmed by the Council when it expressed its support for the overall compromise package of amendments. The Committee of Permanent Representatives considered that a sunset clause under which the implementing powers would be suspended could harm the effective implementation of this directive. It therefore asked Parliament to consider the implications of such a sunset clause carefully. The Commission shares the concerns expressed by the Council. Yet it also recognises Parliament’s view that its role in supervising the exercise of delegated authority must be brought in line with its standing in the codecision procedure. Pending an overall solution for comitology, the Commission understands that Parliament would wish to limit the delegated authority in time. For the Commission it is essential that this period be long enough to ensure proper implementation of the directive. I understand that your rapporteur would propose a sunset clause of two years after the entry into force of the directive, but 1 April 2008 at the latest. This would not, however, apply to Article 26, on international auditing standards. The Commission can agree with this. This solution would correspond with the solution found in Mr Radwan's report on the proposed capital requirements directive. The Commission also calls on the Council to show flexibility, but above all to consider the revision of the 1999 comitology decision as a priority."@hu¹¹ "Signor Presidente, vorrei ringraziare l’onorevole Bert Doorn e la commissione giuridica per l’eccellente lavoro svolto su questo . Una cooperazione efficace tra le Istituzioni dovrebbe consentire di approvare questa proposta in un’unica lettura. La revisione legale dei conti è un tema di grande importanza per l’Europa; i recenti scandali infatti hanno evidenziato la necessità di raccogliere le nuove sfide. Per ammodernare la revisione legale dei conti, la direttiva modificata indicherà con maggior chiarezza i doveri dei revisori legali dei conti, la loro indipendenza e il loro codice etico. Essa inoltre invocherà l’applicazione di norme internazionali sulla revisione dei conti, e stabilirà i criteri per un rigoroso controllo pubblico della professione del revisore contabile. Nell’Unione europea abbiamo bisogno di revisori contabili capaci. Ciò andrà a vantaggio di tutti – aziende, investitori e risparmiatori, grandi e piccoli – e favorirà la crescita della fiducia economica. Vorrei fare alcune osservazioni sull’opportunità di limitare la responsabilità dei revisori contabili, un tema che è emerso durante le discussioni su questa direttiva, sebbene non fosse menzionato nella proposta originaria della Commissione europea. I revisori sono molto cauti al momento di assumere nuove revisioni poiché temono la responsabilità illimitata. Capisco le argomentazioni che sono state mosse a favore di un’azione a livello di Unione europea, giacché potrebbe esserci un impatto sul mercato interno, e intendo agire attivamente per capire che cosa si possa fare al riguardo. Come prima misura, vorrei avviare uno studio in materia nel prossimo futuro. Gli emendamenti proposti tengono conto delle discussioni in seno al Consiglio e godono del forte sostegno del settore della revisione contabile. Le soluzioni proposte dal vostro relatore, inoltre, sono ben equilibrate e rispettano le intenzioni iniziali della Commissione su questa normativa. Di conseguenza sosteniamo con forza il risultato. Come si è già verificato per la precedente relazione che abbiamo discusso, la comitatologia è ancora una volta l’unico tema irrisolto. La situazione è molto simile a quella verificatasi poco fa nell’ambito della discussione sulla relazione Radwan, concernente la direttiva sui requisiti patrimoniali. Farò riferimento alle affermazioni che ho fatto in tale contesto, così non dovrò ripetermi. Le competenze di esecuzione sono molto importanti per l’ottava direttiva sul diritto societario. Molte questioni tecniche e numerosi adeguamenti richiedono la disponibilità di competenze di comitatologia, come ha confermato il Consiglio al momento di esprimere il proprio sostegno al pacchetto di emendamenti di compromesso. Il comitato dei rappresentanti permanenti riteneva che una clausola di caducità, nell’ambito della quale sarebbero state sospese le competenze di esecuzione, avrebbe potuto danneggiare l’effettiva attuazione della direttiva; di conseguenza ha chiesto al Parlamento di considerare con attenzione le implicazioni di una simile clausola di caducità. La Commissione condivide le preoccupazioni espresse dal Consiglio, ma tiene conto anche del parere del Parlamento secondo cui il proprio ruolo di vigilanza dell’esercizio dell’autorità delegata dev’essere conforme alla propria posizione nell’ambito della procedura di codecisione. In mancanza di una soluzione globale per la comitatologia, la Commissione comprende che il Parlamento voglia limitare, col tempo, l’autorità delegata; per la Commissione è essenziale che questo periodo sia sufficientemente lungo per garantire un’adeguata attuazione della direttiva. Mi risulta che il vostro relatore vorrebbe proporre una clausola di caducità di due anni dall’entrata in vigore della direttiva, ma al più tardi al 1° aprile 2008. Ciò comunque non varrebbe per l’articolo 26 sui principi di revisione internazionali. La Commissione può essere d’accordo su questo punto. La soluzione corrisponderebbe a quella individuata nella relazione Radwan sulla proposta di direttiva concernente i requisiti patrimoniali. La Commissione inoltre invita il Consiglio a mostrarsi flessibile, ma soprattutto a considerare prioritaria la revisione della decisione del 1999 sulla comitatologia."@it¹² "Mr President, I would like to thank Bert Doorn, and the Legal Affairs Committee, for the excellent work done on this dossier. Efficient cooperation between the institutions should make it possible to adopt this proposal in a single reading. Statutory audit is a very important subject for Europe. Recent scandals highlighted the need to reply to new challenges. In order to modernise statutory audit, the revised directive will clarify the duties of statutory auditors, their independence and their ethics. It will also require the application of international standards on auditing and will set the criteria for robust public oversight of the audit profession. We must have proper auditors in the EU. This benefits everyone: the companies themselves, investors and savers, both large and small. Economic confidence will grow. Let me just say a few words on the question of limiting auditor liability. This question has arisen during debates on this directive, although it was not in the Commission’s original proposal. Auditors are wary of taking on new audits because they are afraid of unlimited liability. I can see the arguments in favour of acting at EU level, as there could potentially be an impact on the internal market. I intend to work actively to see what can be done in this regard. As a first step, I intend to launch a study in the near future. The proposed amendments take account of the discussions in the Council, and also enjoy strong support from the audit industry. The solutions proposed by your rapporteur are, furthermore, well balanced and respect the Commission’s initial intentions with this legislation. So we strongly support the outcome. As was the case with the previous report that we discussed, comitology is once again the only outstanding issue. The situation is very similar to what was said in the context of Mr Radwan’s report on the capital requirements directive just a few moments ago. I refer to the statements I made in that context so I do not need to repeat myself. Implementing powers are very important for the eighth company law directive. Many technical issues and adaptations require the availability of comitology powers. This was also confirmed by the Council when it expressed its support for the overall compromise package of amendments. The Committee of Permanent Representatives considered that a sunset clause under which the implementing powers would be suspended could harm the effective implementation of this directive. It therefore asked Parliament to consider the implications of such a sunset clause carefully. The Commission shares the concerns expressed by the Council. Yet it also recognises Parliament’s view that its role in supervising the exercise of delegated authority must be brought in line with its standing in the codecision procedure. Pending an overall solution for comitology, the Commission understands that Parliament would wish to limit the delegated authority in time. For the Commission it is essential that this period be long enough to ensure proper implementation of the directive. I understand that your rapporteur would propose a sunset clause of two years after the entry into force of the directive, but 1 April 2008 at the latest. This would not, however, apply to Article 26, on international auditing standards. The Commission can agree with this. This solution would correspond with the solution found in Mr Radwan's report on the proposed capital requirements directive. The Commission also calls on the Council to show flexibility, but above all to consider the revision of the 1999 comitology decision as a priority."@lt¹⁴ "Mr President, I would like to thank Bert Doorn, and the Legal Affairs Committee, for the excellent work done on this dossier. Efficient cooperation between the institutions should make it possible to adopt this proposal in a single reading. Statutory audit is a very important subject for Europe. Recent scandals highlighted the need to reply to new challenges. In order to modernise statutory audit, the revised directive will clarify the duties of statutory auditors, their independence and their ethics. It will also require the application of international standards on auditing and will set the criteria for robust public oversight of the audit profession. We must have proper auditors in the EU. This benefits everyone: the companies themselves, investors and savers, both large and small. Economic confidence will grow. Let me just say a few words on the question of limiting auditor liability. This question has arisen during debates on this directive, although it was not in the Commission’s original proposal. Auditors are wary of taking on new audits because they are afraid of unlimited liability. I can see the arguments in favour of acting at EU level, as there could potentially be an impact on the internal market. I intend to work actively to see what can be done in this regard. As a first step, I intend to launch a study in the near future. The proposed amendments take account of the discussions in the Council, and also enjoy strong support from the audit industry. The solutions proposed by your rapporteur are, furthermore, well balanced and respect the Commission’s initial intentions with this legislation. So we strongly support the outcome. As was the case with the previous report that we discussed, comitology is once again the only outstanding issue. The situation is very similar to what was said in the context of Mr Radwan’s report on the capital requirements directive just a few moments ago. I refer to the statements I made in that context so I do not need to repeat myself. Implementing powers are very important for the eighth company law directive. Many technical issues and adaptations require the availability of comitology powers. This was also confirmed by the Council when it expressed its support for the overall compromise package of amendments. The Committee of Permanent Representatives considered that a sunset clause under which the implementing powers would be suspended could harm the effective implementation of this directive. It therefore asked Parliament to consider the implications of such a sunset clause carefully. The Commission shares the concerns expressed by the Council. Yet it also recognises Parliament’s view that its role in supervising the exercise of delegated authority must be brought in line with its standing in the codecision procedure. Pending an overall solution for comitology, the Commission understands that Parliament would wish to limit the delegated authority in time. For the Commission it is essential that this period be long enough to ensure proper implementation of the directive. I understand that your rapporteur would propose a sunset clause of two years after the entry into force of the directive, but 1 April 2008 at the latest. This would not, however, apply to Article 26, on international auditing standards. The Commission can agree with this. This solution would correspond with the solution found in Mr Radwan's report on the proposed capital requirements directive. The Commission also calls on the Council to show flexibility, but above all to consider the revision of the 1999 comitology decision as a priority."@lv¹³ "Mr President, I would like to thank Bert Doorn, and the Legal Affairs Committee, for the excellent work done on this dossier. Efficient cooperation between the institutions should make it possible to adopt this proposal in a single reading. Statutory audit is a very important subject for Europe. Recent scandals highlighted the need to reply to new challenges. In order to modernise statutory audit, the revised directive will clarify the duties of statutory auditors, their independence and their ethics. It will also require the application of international standards on auditing and will set the criteria for robust public oversight of the audit profession. We must have proper auditors in the EU. This benefits everyone: the companies themselves, investors and savers, both large and small. Economic confidence will grow. Let me just say a few words on the question of limiting auditor liability. This question has arisen during debates on this directive, although it was not in the Commission’s original proposal. Auditors are wary of taking on new audits because they are afraid of unlimited liability. I can see the arguments in favour of acting at EU level, as there could potentially be an impact on the internal market. I intend to work actively to see what can be done in this regard. As a first step, I intend to launch a study in the near future. The proposed amendments take account of the discussions in the Council, and also enjoy strong support from the audit industry. The solutions proposed by your rapporteur are, furthermore, well balanced and respect the Commission’s initial intentions with this legislation. So we strongly support the outcome. As was the case with the previous report that we discussed, comitology is once again the only outstanding issue. The situation is very similar to what was said in the context of Mr Radwan’s report on the capital requirements directive just a few moments ago. I refer to the statements I made in that context so I do not need to repeat myself. Implementing powers are very important for the eighth company law directive. Many technical issues and adaptations require the availability of comitology powers. This was also confirmed by the Council when it expressed its support for the overall compromise package of amendments. The Committee of Permanent Representatives considered that a sunset clause under which the implementing powers would be suspended could harm the effective implementation of this directive. It therefore asked Parliament to consider the implications of such a sunset clause carefully. The Commission shares the concerns expressed by the Council. Yet it also recognises Parliament’s view that its role in supervising the exercise of delegated authority must be brought in line with its standing in the codecision procedure. Pending an overall solution for comitology, the Commission understands that Parliament would wish to limit the delegated authority in time. For the Commission it is essential that this period be long enough to ensure proper implementation of the directive. I understand that your rapporteur would propose a sunset clause of two years after the entry into force of the directive, but 1 April 2008 at the latest. This would not, however, apply to Article 26, on international auditing standards. The Commission can agree with this. This solution would correspond with the solution found in Mr Radwan's report on the proposed capital requirements directive. The Commission also calls on the Council to show flexibility, but above all to consider the revision of the 1999 comitology decision as a priority."@mt¹⁵ "Mijnheer de Voorzitter, ik dank de heer Doorn en de Commissie juridische zaken voor het uitstekende werk dat zij met betrekking tot dit dossier hebben verricht. De instellingen moeten efficiënt samenwerken, zodat dit voorstel in één enkele lezing kan worden aangenomen. De wettelijke accountantscontrole is voor Europa van uitzonderlijk belang. Immers, uit recente schandalen is gebleken dat wij het hoofd moeten bieden aan nieuwe uitdagingen. De gewijzigde richtlijn heeft tot doel de wettelijke accountantscontrole te moderniseren door klaarheid te scheppen in de plichten van de met de wettelijke controle belaste accountants, hun onafhankelijkheid te waarborgen en hun beroepsethiek duidelijk af te bakenen. Zij zal tevens voorzien in de toepassing van internationale standaarden voor accountantscontrole en in criteria voor het uitoefenen van een streng extern toezicht op het accountantsberoep. De EU moet over goede accountants beschikken. Daar heeft iedereen baat bij: de bedrijven zelf, de investeerders en de spaarders, zowel groot als klein. Dit zal ongetwijfeld de economische groei bevorderen. Laat ik nu even kort ingaan op de beperking van de aansprakelijkheid van de accountant. Deze kwestie is tijdens de debatten over de richtlijn aan de orde geweest, ofschoon zij niet in het oorspronkelijke Commissievoorstel vervat zit. Accountants zijn nogal huiverig om zomaar nieuwe controles op zich te nemen uit vrees voor het beginsel van onbeperkte aansprakelijkheid. Ik heb begrip voor de argumenten waarmee wordt aangedrongen op communautaire maatregelen, aangezien er mogelijkerwijs sprake is van een effect op de interne markt. Ik zal eens grondig nagaan wat er op dit vlak gedaan kan worden. Om te beginnen zal ik in de nabije toekomst een studie laten uitvoeren. In de voorgestelde amendementen wordt rekening gehouden met de discussies in de Raad en zij kunnen ook in de accountantssector op ruime steun rekenen. Bovendien zijn de oplossingen van de rapporteur evenwichtig en in overeenstemming met de oorspronkelijke bedoelingen van de Commissie terzake. Daarom draagt de tekst onze absolute goedkeuring weg. Net zoals met het vorige verslag dat wij hier besproken hebben het geval was, vormt het comitologievraagstuk het enige probleem. De situatie is vergelijkbaar met hetgeen hier zojuist in verband met het verslag van de heer Radwan over de richtlijn betreffende kapitaaltoereikendheid is gezegd. Om niet in herhaling te vallen verwijs ik dan ook naar de verklaringen die ik daarnet heb afgelegd. De uitvoeringsbevoegdheden spelen een bijzonder belangrijke rol bij de achtste richtlijn vennootschapsrecht. Er zijn talloze technische kwesties en aanpassingen die comitologiebevoegdheden vereisen. Dat heeft ook de Raad bevestigd toen hij zijn steun uitsprak voor het gehele compromispakket van amendementen. Het Comité van permanente vertegenwoordigers is van oordeel dat een vervalclausule waarmee de uitvoeringsbevoegdheden worden opgeschort een doeltreffende tenuitvoerlegging van deze richtlijn in de weg kan staan. Daarom heeft het comité dit Parlement gevraagd om de gevolgen van een dergelijke vervalclausule goed te overwegen. De Commissie deelt de bezorgdheid van de Raad. Zij heeft echter ook begrip voor het standpunt van het Parlement, dat zijn rol bij het toezicht op de uitvoering van overgedragen bevoegdheden op één lijn wenst te brengen met de positie die het geniet in de medebeslissingsprocedure. In afwachting van een algemene oplossing voor het comitologievraagstuk begrijpt de Commissie dat het Parlement de overgedragen bevoegdheden wil beperken in de tijd. De Commissie acht het evenwel van essentieel belang dat deze periode toereikend is om een correcte tenuitvoerlegging van de richtlijn te waarborgen. Ik begrijp dat de rapporteur pleit voor een vervalclausule van twee jaar vanaf de inwerkingtreding van de richtlijn en ten laatste vanaf 1 april 2008. Dit voorstel is echter niet van toepassing op artikel 26 betreffende internationale standaarden voor accountantscontrole. De Commissie kan hiermee instemmen. De voorgedragen oplossing stemt overeen met die van het verslag van de heer Radwan over de richtlijn betreffende kapitaaltoereikendheid. Anderzijds roept de Commissie de Raad op om de nodige flexibiliteit aan de dag te leggen en bovenal ook de herziening van het comitologiebesluit van 1999 als een prioriteit te beschouwen."@nl³ "Mr President, I would like to thank Bert Doorn, and the Legal Affairs Committee, for the excellent work done on this dossier. Efficient cooperation between the institutions should make it possible to adopt this proposal in a single reading. Statutory audit is a very important subject for Europe. Recent scandals highlighted the need to reply to new challenges. In order to modernise statutory audit, the revised directive will clarify the duties of statutory auditors, their independence and their ethics. It will also require the application of international standards on auditing and will set the criteria for robust public oversight of the audit profession. We must have proper auditors in the EU. This benefits everyone: the companies themselves, investors and savers, both large and small. Economic confidence will grow. Let me just say a few words on the question of limiting auditor liability. This question has arisen during debates on this directive, although it was not in the Commission’s original proposal. Auditors are wary of taking on new audits because they are afraid of unlimited liability. I can see the arguments in favour of acting at EU level, as there could potentially be an impact on the internal market. I intend to work actively to see what can be done in this regard. As a first step, I intend to launch a study in the near future. The proposed amendments take account of the discussions in the Council, and also enjoy strong support from the audit industry. The solutions proposed by your rapporteur are, furthermore, well balanced and respect the Commission’s initial intentions with this legislation. So we strongly support the outcome. As was the case with the previous report that we discussed, comitology is once again the only outstanding issue. The situation is very similar to what was said in the context of Mr Radwan’s report on the capital requirements directive just a few moments ago. I refer to the statements I made in that context so I do not need to repeat myself. Implementing powers are very important for the eighth company law directive. Many technical issues and adaptations require the availability of comitology powers. This was also confirmed by the Council when it expressed its support for the overall compromise package of amendments. The Committee of Permanent Representatives considered that a sunset clause under which the implementing powers would be suspended could harm the effective implementation of this directive. It therefore asked Parliament to consider the implications of such a sunset clause carefully. The Commission shares the concerns expressed by the Council. Yet it also recognises Parliament’s view that its role in supervising the exercise of delegated authority must be brought in line with its standing in the codecision procedure. Pending an overall solution for comitology, the Commission understands that Parliament would wish to limit the delegated authority in time. For the Commission it is essential that this period be long enough to ensure proper implementation of the directive. I understand that your rapporteur would propose a sunset clause of two years after the entry into force of the directive, but 1 April 2008 at the latest. This would not, however, apply to Article 26, on international auditing standards. The Commission can agree with this. This solution would correspond with the solution found in Mr Radwan's report on the proposed capital requirements directive. The Commission also calls on the Council to show flexibility, but above all to consider the revision of the 1999 comitology decision as a priority."@pl¹⁶ "Senhor Presidente, gostaria de agradecer a Bert Doorn e à Comissão dos Assuntos Jurídicos o excelente trabalho realizado neste dossiê. Uma cooperação eficaz entre as instituições deverá permitir a adopção desta proposta em primeira leitura. A revisão legal das contas constitui um tema muito importante para a Europa. Escândalos recentes colocaram em evidência a necessidade de dar resposta a novos desafios. A fim de modernizar a revisão legal das contas, a directiva revista clarificará as dúvidas sobre os revisores oficiais, a sua independência e ética. Requererá ainda a aplicação de normas internacionais sobre auditoria e estabelecerá os critérios para uma supervisão pública sólida dos profissionais de auditoria. Temos de ter revisores oficiais e sociedades de auditoria a funcionar correctamente na União Europeia, porque isso beneficia todos: as próprias empresas, os investidores e aforradores, tanto os grandes como os pequenos. A confiança na economia aumentará. Permitiam-me que me refira brevemente à questão de limitar a responsabilidade dos revisores oficiais de contas. Esta questão foi suscitada durante os debates sobre esta directiva, muito embora não figurasse na proposta original da Comissão. Os revisores oficiais de contas têm receio de aceitar novas auditorias por recearem a responsabilidade ilimitada. Posso compreender os argumentos a favor de normas comunitárias, pelo eventual impacto que poderia exercer-se sobre o mercado interno. Tenciono trabalhar activamente para ver o que pode ser feito a este respeito. Como primeiro passo, pretendo dar início a um estudo proximamente. As alterações apresentadas contemplam as discussões no Conselho, e gozam também de um forte apoio do sector dos revisores oficiais e das empresas de auditoria. As soluções propostas pelo relator são, além do mais, bem equilibradas e respeitam as intenções iniciais da Comissão nesta matéria. Apoiamos fortemente, por conseguinte, o resultado. À semelhança do anterior relatório que debatemos, a comitologia é, mais uma vez, a única questão pendente. A situação é muito similar à que foi descrita há instantes no contexto do debate do relatório do senhor deputado Radwan sobre a directiva relativa aos requisitos de fundos próprios. Remeto para o que então afirmei, pelo que é desnecessário voltar a repetir-me. As competências de execução são muito importantes para a oitava directiva relativa ao direito das sociedades. Muitas questões e adaptações técnicas requerem a existência de competências de comitologia. Isto foi igualmente confirmado pelo Conselho ao manifestar o seu apoio ao pacote geral de alterações. O Comité de Representantes Permanentes considerou que uma cláusula de revisão ao abrigo da qual as competências de execução seriam suspensas poderia prejudicar a execução efectiva desta directiva. Solicitou, por isso, ao Parlamento que considerasse atentamente as implicações de uma cláusula desse tipo. A Comissão partilha as inquietações expressas pelo Conselho. Todavia, reconhece também a visão do Parlamento segundo a qual o seu papel na supervisão do exercício de autoridade delegada deve ser consentâneo com a sua posição no procedimento de co-decisão. Até haver uma solução global para a comitologia, a Comissão compreende que o Parlamento desejasse limitar no tempo a autoridade delegada. Para a Comissão, é essencial que este período seja suficientemente longo para assegurar uma implementação adequada da directiva. Entendo a proposta do vosso relator de introduzir uma cláusula de revisão de dois anos após a entrada em vigor da directiva, mas 1 Abril de 2008 o mais tardar. Contudo, isto não se aplicaria ao artigo 26º, relativo às normas internacionais de auditoria. A Comissão pode aceitá-lo. Esta solução corresponderia à solução encontrada no relatório do senhor deputado Radwan sobre a proposta de directiva relativa aos requisitos de fundos próprios. A Comissão exorta também o Conselho a mostrar alguma flexibilidade, mas, acima de tudo, a considerar prioritária a revisão da decisão de 1999 relativa à comitologia."@pt¹⁷ "Mr President, I would like to thank Bert Doorn, and the Legal Affairs Committee, for the excellent work done on this dossier. Efficient cooperation between the institutions should make it possible to adopt this proposal in a single reading. Statutory audit is a very important subject for Europe. Recent scandals highlighted the need to reply to new challenges. In order to modernise statutory audit, the revised directive will clarify the duties of statutory auditors, their independence and their ethics. It will also require the application of international standards on auditing and will set the criteria for robust public oversight of the audit profession. We must have proper auditors in the EU. This benefits everyone: the companies themselves, investors and savers, both large and small. Economic confidence will grow. Let me just say a few words on the question of limiting auditor liability. This question has arisen during debates on this directive, although it was not in the Commission’s original proposal. Auditors are wary of taking on new audits because they are afraid of unlimited liability. I can see the arguments in favour of acting at EU level, as there could potentially be an impact on the internal market. I intend to work actively to see what can be done in this regard. As a first step, I intend to launch a study in the near future. The proposed amendments take account of the discussions in the Council, and also enjoy strong support from the audit industry. The solutions proposed by your rapporteur are, furthermore, well balanced and respect the Commission’s initial intentions with this legislation. So we strongly support the outcome. As was the case with the previous report that we discussed, comitology is once again the only outstanding issue. The situation is very similar to what was said in the context of Mr Radwan’s report on the capital requirements directive just a few moments ago. I refer to the statements I made in that context so I do not need to repeat myself. Implementing powers are very important for the eighth company law directive. Many technical issues and adaptations require the availability of comitology powers. This was also confirmed by the Council when it expressed its support for the overall compromise package of amendments. The Committee of Permanent Representatives considered that a sunset clause under which the implementing powers would be suspended could harm the effective implementation of this directive. It therefore asked Parliament to consider the implications of such a sunset clause carefully. The Commission shares the concerns expressed by the Council. Yet it also recognises Parliament’s view that its role in supervising the exercise of delegated authority must be brought in line with its standing in the codecision procedure. Pending an overall solution for comitology, the Commission understands that Parliament would wish to limit the delegated authority in time. For the Commission it is essential that this period be long enough to ensure proper implementation of the directive. I understand that your rapporteur would propose a sunset clause of two years after the entry into force of the directive, but 1 April 2008 at the latest. This would not, however, apply to Article 26, on international auditing standards. The Commission can agree with this. This solution would correspond with the solution found in Mr Radwan's report on the proposed capital requirements directive. The Commission also calls on the Council to show flexibility, but above all to consider the revision of the 1999 comitology decision as a priority."@sk¹⁸ "Mr President, I would like to thank Bert Doorn, and the Legal Affairs Committee, for the excellent work done on this dossier. Efficient cooperation between the institutions should make it possible to adopt this proposal in a single reading. Statutory audit is a very important subject for Europe. Recent scandals highlighted the need to reply to new challenges. In order to modernise statutory audit, the revised directive will clarify the duties of statutory auditors, their independence and their ethics. It will also require the application of international standards on auditing and will set the criteria for robust public oversight of the audit profession. We must have proper auditors in the EU. This benefits everyone: the companies themselves, investors and savers, both large and small. Economic confidence will grow. Let me just say a few words on the question of limiting auditor liability. This question has arisen during debates on this directive, although it was not in the Commission’s original proposal. Auditors are wary of taking on new audits because they are afraid of unlimited liability. I can see the arguments in favour of acting at EU level, as there could potentially be an impact on the internal market. I intend to work actively to see what can be done in this regard. As a first step, I intend to launch a study in the near future. The proposed amendments take account of the discussions in the Council, and also enjoy strong support from the audit industry. The solutions proposed by your rapporteur are, furthermore, well balanced and respect the Commission’s initial intentions with this legislation. So we strongly support the outcome. As was the case with the previous report that we discussed, comitology is once again the only outstanding issue. The situation is very similar to what was said in the context of Mr Radwan’s report on the capital requirements directive just a few moments ago. I refer to the statements I made in that context so I do not need to repeat myself. Implementing powers are very important for the eighth company law directive. Many technical issues and adaptations require the availability of comitology powers. This was also confirmed by the Council when it expressed its support for the overall compromise package of amendments. The Committee of Permanent Representatives considered that a sunset clause under which the implementing powers would be suspended could harm the effective implementation of this directive. It therefore asked Parliament to consider the implications of such a sunset clause carefully. The Commission shares the concerns expressed by the Council. Yet it also recognises Parliament’s view that its role in supervising the exercise of delegated authority must be brought in line with its standing in the codecision procedure. Pending an overall solution for comitology, the Commission understands that Parliament would wish to limit the delegated authority in time. For the Commission it is essential that this period be long enough to ensure proper implementation of the directive. I understand that your rapporteur would propose a sunset clause of two years after the entry into force of the directive, but 1 April 2008 at the latest. This would not, however, apply to Article 26, on international auditing standards. The Commission can agree with this. This solution would correspond with the solution found in Mr Radwan's report on the proposed capital requirements directive. The Commission also calls on the Council to show flexibility, but above all to consider the revision of the 1999 comitology decision as a priority."@sl¹⁹ ". Herr talman! Jag vill tacka Bert Doorn och utskottet för rättsliga frågor för det utmärkta arbetet med denna fråga. Ett effektivt samarbete mellan institutionerna borde göra det möjligt att anta detta förslag efter endast en behandling. Lagstadgad revision är en viktig fråga för EU. Den senaste tidens skandaler har framhävt behovet av att svara på nya utmaningar. I syfte att modernisera den lagstadgade revisionen kommer innehållet i det reviderade direktivet att tydliggöra de lagstadgade revisorernas skyldigheter, deras oberoende och deras etiska normer. Direktivet kommer också att innehålla krav på att internationella normer om revision tillämpas och kriterier för en robust offentlig kontroll av revisionsbranschen. Vi måste ha bra revisorer i EU. Detta gynnar alla: företagen själva, investerarna och spararna, både små och stora. Det ekonomiska förtroendet kommer att öka. Låt mig bara säga några ord om frågan om att begränsa revisorernas ansvar. Denna fråga har uppkommit under debatterna om detta direktiv, trots att den inte fanns med i kommissionens ursprungliga förslag. Revisorerna aktar sig för att ta på sig nya revisionsarbeten eftersom de är rädda för obegränsat ansvar. Jag förstår argumenten för att agera på EU-nivå, eftersom det potentiellt sett kan påverka den inre marknaden. Jag har för avsikt att aktivt se efter vad som kan göras i denna fråga. Som ett första steg avser jag att inleda en undersökning inom den närmaste framtiden. Ändringsförslagen tar hänsyn till diskussionerna i rådet, och de får också starkt stöd från revisionsbranschen. De lösningar som föredraganden har föreslagit är dessutom välbalanserade och respekterar kommissionens ursprungliga avsikter med denna lagstiftning. Därför ger vi vårt bestämda stöd till resultatet. Liksom i det betänkande vi diskuterade tidigare är utskottsförfarandet även här den enda fråga som ännu är olöst. Situationen liknar väldigt mycket det som sades för en stund sedan i samband med Alexander Radwans betänkande om direktivet om kapitalkrav. Jag hänvisar till de uttalanden jag gjorde i det sammanhanget så att jag inte behöver upprepa mig själv. Genomförandebefogenheter är mycket viktiga för det åttonde bolagsrättsliga direktivet. Många tekniska frågor och anpassningar kräver att utskottsförfarandet har befogenheter. Detta bekräftades också av rådet när det uttryckte sitt stöd för det övergripande kompromisspaketet med ändringsförslag. Ständiga representanternas kommitté ansåg att en tidsfristklausul som skulle upphäva genomförandebefogenheterna skulle kunna förhindra att detta direktiv genomförs på ett effektivt sätt. Därför bad den parlamentet att noggrant överväga följderna av en sådan tidsfristklausul. Kommissionen delar den oro som har uttryckts av rådet. Samtidigt värdesätter den parlamentets åsikt att dess roll när det gäller att övervaka utövandet av delegerad befogenhet måste bringas i harmoni med dess ställning i medbeslutandeförfarandet. I väntan på en övergripande lösning för utskottsförfarandet inser kommissionen att parlamentet skulle vilja tidsbegränsa den delegerade befogenheten. För kommissionen är det mycket viktigt att denna period blir tillräckligt lång för att direktivet ska kunna genomföras ordentligt. Jag noterar att föredraganden vill föreslå en tidsfristklausul som gäller i två år efter det att direktivet har trätt i kraft, men allra längst till den 1 april 2008. Detta skulle dock inte gälla artikel 26 om internationella revisionsstandarder. Kommissionen samtycker till detta. Denna lösning skulle överensstämma med den lösning som finns i Alexander Radwans betänkande om det föreslagna direktivet om kapitalkrav. Kommissionen uppmanar också rådet att visa flexibilitet, men framför allt att prioritera revideringen av 1999 års beslut om utskottsförfarandet."@sv²¹
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Charlie McCreevy,"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,13,4} "Member of the Commission"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,13,4}