Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-03-Speech-2-313"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010403.13.2-313"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, may I thank you once again for giving me the floor to reply to some of the comments made by Members.
Mr von Wogau said, if I understood him correctly, that the communication which has been referred to by Members of Parliament, and which I myself mentioned, is a source of law. I cannot see it that way. The source of law is the Treaty. The Treaty is clear. The Commission is the guardian of the Treaty and universally recognised as such. It issued the communication in 1997 in order to clear up certain misunderstandings in connection with the relevant articles of the Treaty.
It did not do so without reason. I shall refer to two particular instances. Firstly in 1991 the United Kingdom tried to use golden shares to oppose the acquisition of certain British companies which had been privatised by public entities, public companies, of other Member States. At the time, in 1991, this was known as the "Lilley doctrine". The Commission took energetic action. The United Kingdom changed its policy.
The second instance is a more recent one. At international level my colleague, Mr Lamy, had to oppose an analogous American initiative which was taken against certain public European companies in the telecom area. So in both these instances one sees that the Commission has taken action against the attempts, whether by a Member State, or in the case of the United States by a third country, to block investments by companies, whether private or public from other Member States, in privatised companies of the home state.
To return to the main point at issue, the Commission has done no more than interpret the relevant articles of the Treaty – basically Articles 56 and 43.
That is what is laid down in the interpretative communication. So it cannot be said, as Mr Katiforis said earlier tonight, that the Commission is constructing its own framework of rules. Once again and for the last time, I will say that the Commission has been entrusted with the duty to act as guardian of the Treaty. In the years running up to 1997 there was uncertainty about the way Articles 43 and 56 ought to be interpreted. That is the reason for the interpretative communication. The final instance that decides on what is right or wrong, what is legal and illegal, is the Court of Justice. Naturally the Commission does not, in the end, decide what the legal situation is. That is the responsibility of the Court of Justice. But before the matter can be considered by the Court of Justice somebody has to bring the case to the attention of the Court. That is what the Commission has done. This Commissioner has played a certain role in this and has taken a number of Member States to court for making use of the golden share.
So I must reject the reproach made against the Commission that it has arrogated unto itself certain competences that it should not have, that it is framing its own system of rules. No, the Commission is merely interpreting and stating what the law is. That is the reason why it has taken some Member States to court. Hopefully we will soon see what the Court of Justice has to say.
I was asked if I would issue a directive. There is no need for a directive. We have a treaty. The Commission interprets the treaty and the Court of Justice decides. So we do not need a directive. Having said all that, the Commission is due to have a debate on this whole issue shortly. After that has taken place perhaps I can further inform Parliament, but at this moment I see no reason to change the opinion that I have just given."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples