Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-22-Speech-2-251"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021022.9.2-251"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"C
.
Mr President, honourable Members, although it is for Parliament to debate its own Rules of Procedure, I would like to take the opportunity to say a few words. The discharge procedure is of course of very great importance to the Commission, and it is enshrined in the Treaty itself. Now it has a place, and is couched in even clearer terms, in the financial regulation, so that there are two existing legal bases, which of course have to be taken together in reaching decisions. I must therefore raise the question of whether all the amendments that have been submitted are in accordance with these legal bases.
Over the last two years, Parliament has negotiated with the Council and the Court of Auditors and done very in-depth work on the recast financial regulation. A good and clear result has finally been achieved. Article 146 (1) states: 'The European Parliament, acting on a recommendation from the Council, which shall act by a qualified majority, shall give a discharge to the Commission before 30 April of the year n+2 in respect of the implementation of the budget of the financial year n. Where the time period provided for in paragraph 1 cannot be adhered to, the European Parliament or the Council shall notify the Commission of the reasons for the suspension of the discharge resolution. Where the European Parliament defers the grant of the discharge resolution, the Commission shall act as soon as possible to remove the causes of impediment.' End of quotation from Article 146.
I believe that the legislative authority had a clear aim in choosing this formulation. Where, exceptionally, the discharge resolution is deferred, the Commission is to respond very quickly in order to remove the causes of the impediment. Now these proposals refer to October, all of six months later. That is, of course, not exactly a quick response within the meaning of Article 146. This deferment procedure also involves three other difficulties. The first is that the Commission has to take care that Parliament keeps the reasons for the suspension of the discharge resolution realistic and within the bounds of feasibility. The second is that, if it is envisaged that action will be taken, six months is again a relatively short period. If the Commission is meant to come up with responses and commitments, it can – and should – do so more quickly. Thirdly, if these conditions are to be seen as a normal option in the Rules of Procedure themselves, there is of course the risk of suspension being regarded as a regular course of action.
I would like to point out that Parliament already, of course, has instruments available, by which it can impose further tasks and actions on the Commission, and, indeed, it has done so in recent years. The resolution on the discharge procedure was combined with quite unambiguous demands, concerning which the Commission is drawing up a follow-up report – not as a matter of choice, but because it is obliged to – and has to set out in clear terms what measures it has submitted in accordance with the motion for a resolution.
Yesterday evening, amendments were tabled on what I would like to call the ‘October option’ question, and these now raise further issues. The Commission would therefore welcome it if these could be further clarified."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples