Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-05-Speech-4-058"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010405.6.4-058"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, as the Commission stated yesterday evening, it is regretfully unable to accept the proposed amendments. The reasons in brief, are as follows.
Regarding Amendments Nos 1 and 10 on predicate offences, the Commission cannot accept coverage essentially limited to organised crime. On the treatment of the professions covered by Amendments Nos 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13 and 22, the Commission considers that the legal professions are a special case deserving special treatment. It is unwilling, however, to extend that same treatment to all the professions. It also believes that certain types of advice, not covered by legal privilege, should fall within the scope of the directive.
On Amendments Nos 7 and 11 on the competent authorities and Amendment No 9 on the definition of financial institutions, the Commission has a preference for the text of the common position. Amendment No 14 constitutes, in the Commission's view, an excessive extension of the coverage of non-financial activities. Regarding Amendments Nos 15 and 16 on client identification, the Commission is satisfied that the common position offers the necessary flexibility. Amendments Nos 17 and 28 deal with the special case of client identification where there is no face-to-face contact. While sympathetic to the objective of Amendment No 28, the Commission cannot accept these amendments as they stand.
Amendment No 18 calls for a revision of the exemptions from client identification for certain insurance contracts. The Commission believes a detailed study is needed prior to such revision. Amendments Nos 19 and 20 deal with identification in casinos. The Commission has a preference for the common position text dealing with this matter. The Commission believes that Amendments Nos 21 and 24 bridge the basic no tipping-off rule. Amendments Nos 23 and 25 amend provisions of the 1991 directive which, in the Commission's view, do not need to be changed.
Finally, Amendments Nos 26 and 27 refer to the role of OLAF. At the request of the Council, the Commission will table a separate proposal on this issue. The amendments are, therefore, unnecessary."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples