Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-25-Speech-4-042"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030925.4.4-042"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I shall try to be brief in my reply to Members of Parliament and their questions.
Mrs Wallis asked whether the Commission is really the Guardian of the Treaties in this case. I would like to reply to her and other Members that yes, we are, and that is the reason the Commission has sent two letters of formal notice. The Commission did not send those letters of formal notice for nothing, there were reasons for doing so. The UK Government has reacted and now, as I said earlier, the legislation is brought into line with European law. It is the duty of the Commission to ensure that this happens.
At the centre of this debate is the question as to the role of the Commission. The role of the Commission, as I have said time and again, is to see that present legislation is in line with present European law. Let me give another example that also concerns the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has instructed its customs authorities to impound quantities of alcohol and cigarettes in excess of what it thinks is reasonable for personal consumption. The Commission has judged that these actions are disproportionate to the purpose sought. Therefore the Commission has sent two letters of formal notice, the process of negotiation and discussion with the UK authorities has started and the UK authorities have brought their instructions into line with what the Commission thinks ought to be done. However, the people who have had their cars impounded have still not received any redress for the loss that they have suffered.
Mr Perry and Mrs Wallis might well say that the Commission should do something about it, see to it that those who have had their cars impounded get compensation for their loss. My reply to them would be the same as my reply in this case – that is not the job of the Commission. Therefore the matter of compensation for previous losses must be left to the national judicial authorities and, as has been remarked this morning, there is now a lawsuit which has been brought before the High Court in London.
Therefore, with all the sympathy I have for people who have undergone these tragic occurrences, some of whom have taken their own lives, I cannot go further than the law allows me to. Therefore, it is not true, as Mr Collins said, that the Commission is sitting on the fence. The Commission is not sitting on the fence, but it cannot go beyond the bounds of what it is allowed to do.
That is what I would like to say. It is not a question of David versus Goliath, as Mr Gemelli said, it is a matter of what the legal bounds of the Commission are. The Ombudsman has dealt with the matter of transparency and I have nothing more to add, except to say that the matter of the committee of inquiry is something I must leave up to Parliament. It is not for me to judge whether the circumstances are present for such a committee, nor whether the process hitherto has been correct. That I must leave in the hands of Parliament: I will respect its outcome."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples