Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-03-Speech-2-310"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010403.13.2-310"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the resolution which we are discussing this evening raises two issues. Firstly, the problem of Community legislation. If we examine the Community's legal sources, we have the original Treaty law, on the one hand, and directives and regulations, which are adopted with the involvement of Council and Parliament, on the other. But between the two, there is something else, which is often regarded as a source of law, namely the communications. We are discussing one of these communications today.
Commissioner, you have rightly pointed out that this communication is merely an interpretation and is based on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. But it often seems as if the Commission is the only body to interpret the law, without any involvement by the Council or the European Parliament. The Commission acts as the sole legislator, as in the Byzantium of ancient times under Emperor Constantine. My law lecturer in Freiburg sometimes described the Commission's methods as the Imperial Byzantine approach to law-making as well.
This is why I think it is absolutely crucial, in these very important cases, that directives or regulations are submitted and – as is right and proper – adopted with the participation of Parliament and the Council.
The problem which we are addressing raises a second issue, namely competition in the European Community. Liberalisation – i.e. the abolition of monopolies – is one of the EU's success stories. In telecommunications in particular, we have seen that cutting costs and prices has genuinely benefited citizens. But there is a substantial danger here. We face a situation in which some are liberalising and opening up to competition, but others are not doing so. And we see that those who have not done sometimes win out, even with a monopoly, as long as the others are buying up, until the old public monopoly has been replaced by a private monopoly. The citizen then still faces a monopoly, as before, and derives no benefit from liberalisation. I think that the Commission needs to pay greater attention to this fact in its activities in future."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples