Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-16-Speech-5-081"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000616.5.5-081"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, my Group abstained from voting on the Grossetête report because in the middle of the perfectly acceptable general considerations on the application of Community law, the resolution put to the vote included a paragraph which we are unable to accept. This is paragraph 11, which invites the Commission, and I quote,: “to be less timid in the use of the periodic penalty payment procedure in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 228(2) of the EC Treaty.
This Article stipulates that the Court of Justice may, as it sees fit, impose penalties or fines, sometimes very stiff ones, on a Member State that, for whatever reason, fails to apply Community law. We feel, however, that the legal problem is not that simple, and that inflicting such penalties on Member States is excessive. In fact, there may be totally legitimate contradictions between Community law and national law. For example, a contradiction which may appear following a qualified majority vote in Council – and there are an increasing number of such votes – or a contradiction which may appear between a national constitution and Community law, or even a contradiction which may appear between Community law and a law which has been voted for after due consideration by the population of a Member State.
These contradictions are very serious, they are still unresolved and this is why we see the existence of Article 228, which was brought in by the Maastricht Treaty, as wholly contestable. I should like in particular to point out that France is now liable to incur severe penalties through the 1998 law, concerning, for example, hunting seasons which contradict Community law, the embargo on British beef and the conflict which, Mr President, is in the process of arising, relating to the patenting of human genes which authorises a European directive that contradicts French law. This is why we absolutely cannot accept this report. It is a question of respecting national sovereignty."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples