Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-03-Speech-2-063"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-09-03"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Sales promotions in the internal market2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020903.4.2-063"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-09-03-Speech-2-0642
lpv:speaker	lp:Béatrice Patrie2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Mouvement des citoyens (1999-07-20--2002-12-02)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Ukraine and the EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committees and Delegation for relations with Belarus (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the least we can say is that the vote on this proposal for a regulation to liberalise sales promotions is taking place prematurely. Once again, the Commission has put the cart before the horse without waiting for the European Parliament’s point of view. The Commission has already favoured the open option in a Green Paper on consumer protection, which will not be examined by the House until several weeks’ time. Therefore, in addition to the slightly incoherent character of the approach taken, one cannot fail to condemn the lack of attention paid to Parliament’s point of view, which has been reduced to a mere rubber-stamping of the policies that have been predetermined by the Commission. The choice of legal instrument that makes up the regulation plays a significant part in this. A framework directive leaving a margin of flexibility for Member States could have been better adapted, but it would certainly have sparked off debates at national level once again, debates that had been concluded by the choice of regulation, which is something that the Commission did not desire. I would particularly like to emphasise the issue of mutual recognition, a principle recommended by the Commission to improve the way the internal market works. The practical difficulties posed by applying this principle should be highlighted. The consumer has no knowledge whatsoever of foreign law, just as a judge in a national court has difficulty when it comes to applying the legal rules of one country other than his own. Secondly, there is a risk that mutual recognition will lead to deregulation that is harmful to both economic operators as well as consumers. Operators that are put at a disadvantage by this principle will evidently be tempted to put pressure upon their government to align their national legislation with legislation that is more liberal. This will therefore lead to a downward alignment of consumer policy throughout the European Union. That is why I proposed replacing this principle, which, incidentally, has been worded in an extremely vague manner in the proposal for a regulation, with a formula which is, in fact, that used in the established case law of the European Court of Justice. As for the rest, I believe that the text, as it appears following the votes in the relevant committees, still contains the vital part of what the Member States consider necessary for the protection of their consumers. Nevertheless, the debate on a genuine European consumer policy has not been held and we certainly hope to hold this debate in the near future, when the Green Paper is presented to the House."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph