Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-13-Speech-2-070"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010313.7.2-070"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by expressing my total support for Mr Deprez's views, that is his rejection of both the Portuguese initiative and the Finnish initiative. These two proposals undermine Article 202, which establishes the general principle that the Commission alone has powers to implement the rules which the Council lays down, although the Council may also reserve the right, in specific well-founded cases, to exercise directly implementing powers itself.
The justification put forward is that the Council wishes to reserve for itself the right to exercise implementing powers for a five-year transitional period because the Member States have an enhanced role in respect of the development of visa policy, reflecting the political sensitivity of this area. This is not in itself, however, a sufficient reason for breaching a general principle of Community law. And it is not a valid argument, because it is contrary to the principle of the Protocol integrating the Schengen
into the legal framework of the European Union, which specifically applies in this area.
With regard to the Frahm report, I believe that we should also support the rapporteur's position, which is to reject the Portuguese initiative. One of the reasons for this is that this initiative would lead to a lack of consistency in the rules governing the movement of third-country nationals within the territory of the Schengen Member States; the Schengen Convention covers three categories of third-country nationals who have a right to travel within the Member States: those required to have a visa, those exempt from any visa requirement and those who have a residence permit. This initiative only covers the second of these categories, thus fragmenting the right to travel of third-country nationals without indicating to what extent these rules revoke, replace or modify the Schengen
.
The Nassauer report also – and quite rightly – proposes that the French initiative should be rejected. Given that there are three proposals that we intend to reject, I would like to make an appeal to the Commissioner, António Vitorino, and to the Commission, that they should take the initiative in this area, thus ensuring the overall consistency of the Community framework of which it is the institutional guardian."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples