Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-13-Speech-2-035"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030513.2.2-035"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Manders, and also the shadow rapporteur from my group, Mrs Niebler, for the effort they have made to work together and to confront the pressure from the industry and from governmental organisations.
I believe that, at the moment, at a time when there have been numerous disasters in Europe, including the
disaster, we must insist on the polluter pays principle. I will focus on two specific points of this important Directive.
With regard to Article 9, which deals with exceptions, it should not be assumed that all exceptions and all authorisations lead to pollution. The establishment of exceptions, such as activities covered by permits, as well as activities covered by the state of the art, correspond to the principle of legal certainty and legitimate confidence, which are being upheld by numerous judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. Furthermore, this exception exclusively exempts damage caused by emissions and actions which fall within authorised parameters, and we should remember the principle of the IPPC Directive on the integrated control and prevention of pollution. I therefore believe that Amendment No 37 perfectly covers the activities permitted specifically and explicitly by the laws.
With regard to financial guarantees, I believe that this is one of the key points of this report and that we must try to establish some sort of obligatory system of financial guarantees, on the part of the operators, in order to cover the responsibilities stemming from this Directive. Bearing in mind the fear of certain countries that the insurance companies cannot take on this responsibility, the step-by-step approach would undoubtedly allow the financial guarantee to be ensured and the possibility of insuring against environmental damage. The fear that small entrepreneurs may be harmed by the measure would be solved by means of the establishment of a minimum threshold or a minimum insurance. This is an important aspect of this Directive and I believe it is taken up appropriately in Amendment No 92, presented by our group."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples