Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-03-Speech-4-028"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-02-03"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:End-of-life vehicles2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000203.1.4-028"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-02-03-Speech-4-0292
lpv:speaker	lp:Per-Arne Arvidsson2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the European Economic Area Joint Parliamentary Committee (EEA) (1999-10-08--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Moderata samlingspartiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, there are two issues of principle in the Council’s draft directive. The first concerns the manufacturer’s unrestricted liability to take back end-of-life vehicles. There is the risk of creating a monopoly within the car dismantling trade. This particularly applies in areas within the EU where distances are great and where a lot of small companies are involved in dismantling vehicles. I believe that, quite apart from the nature of the issue concerned, the EU’s directives should not treat small companies within the Union unfairly. Unrestricted liability on the part of manufacturers would also be in danger of creating a situation in which the market for used car parts disappears, for manufacturers would have a greater responsibility to sell new parts. Yet the trade in used car parts is important, especially for those who collect and renovate older vehicles. The principle of unrestricted liability on the part of manufacturers is also dubious in terms of the principles governing the market economy. It should be possible for changes to be made to companies and for the latter to be sold and wound up. They should be able to establish themselves in new markets, but also to leave old markets. To bind manufacturers by means of a liability which can extend very far back in time ill accords with a flexible market economy designed to promote development. The second principle in the Council’s common position is the retroactive element in the draft directive. It conflicts with established economic and legal principles retroactively to impose upon a manufacturer financial liability for its product. To do so also changes the owner’s liability retroactively. Over the years, a consumer may have altered the product in a number of ways. Every country within the EU now has rules governing the scrapping of cars. Some may be better than others, and some worse. In anticipation of this EU directive’s being implemented, EU countries ought however to be individually liable for scrapping vehicles in the best way possible so that the retroactive element in the EU legislation is not applied. This does not conflict with a financing model involving the building up of funds."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph