Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-01-Speech-3-202"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000301.14.3-202"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, the Commission wishes to emphasise above all that the draft regulation being debated this evening is merely an amendment of the 1995 Convention on insolvency proceedings. As you all know, this convention was the result of many years of discussion, which was often difficult and often laborious, and that for this very reason, it represents a compromise between unitary and territorial principles, that is to say, the structural principles of the different legal insolvency proceedings in each of our Member States.
Because we are aware that the developing global economic situation, and particularly the single market, can force businesses to resort more frequently to insolvency proceedings, which often take the form of cross-border proceedings, the Union itself is fully justified in equipping itself with the binding legal instruments it needs to ensure that insolvency proceedings are carried out according to a set of common structural principles, thus ensuring that they are carried out swiftly.
For better or for worse, the fact that businesses become insolvent will become an increasingly common occurrence in our daily economic life. It will furthermore be a factor in renewing the very fabric of business, which must not be hindered by the existence of slow bureaucratic procedures or by obstacles that prolong the agony of businesses that are no longer viable. This is why it is important to try to find a legal frame of reference which can adapt to the new requirements of a global economy.
It was not the Commission that presented the present proposal for a regulation but two Member States, Germany and Finland, by means of a joint initiative under the right of initiative which Member States share with the Commission on such issues. The Commission considers that this regulation makes no substantive amendment to the text of the Convention. As far back as 1981, the Commission had already stated its position in favour of clearly adopting the principle of unitary insolvency proceedings. Furthermore, this view was accepted in the Commission’s proposals on a parallel procedure concerning the liquidation of businesses.
The 1995 Convention, on the other hand, authorises the filing of secondary proceedings, thereby creating situations which are exceptions to the general rule that the Commission would like to see accepted. Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Commission would therefore have preferred that a new text be adopted, one which would specifically enshrine the principle of unitary proceedings. Nevertheless, I do not think that this is the time to call into question the agreement obtained in the 1995 Convention which was, moreover, based on a timescale for negotiations of approximately thirty years.
Consequently, the Commission has refrained from presenting an amendment. Instead, it has limited itself to focusing its opinions on institutional issues. The Commission feels, for this reason too, that it should not present a modified proposal for amendments to the regulation, but I would nevertheless like to convey to you the Commission’s opinions on the amendments under discussion.
The Commission therefore accepts Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3 and 5 proposed by the rapporteur, Mr Lechner. On the other hand, it does not accept Amendment No 4. Indeed, the Commission feels that Parliament should instead support Amendment No 4 by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, which would allow the annexes to the regulation to be modified by the Commission, assisted by a regulatory committee, in accordance with the on-going procedure of Article 5 of Decision 1999/468/EC. Therefore, with regard to the amendments proposed by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, the Commission accepts Amendments Nos 3 and 4. On the other hand, it does not accept Amendments Nos 1 and 2, on the idea of “centre of the debtor’s main interests”. With regard to the centre of main interests of a company or of a legal person, this idea is clearly defined in Article 3. In all other cases that have not been specifically addressed, we feel that the reference made in Recital 13 should be sufficient."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples