Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-29-Speech-4-086"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040129.2.4-086"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, my Group voted against this agreement. We agree that some good things were agreed in the review of the packaging directive. However, there is a major problem in that the agreement itself violates the spirit of the landmark ruling by the European Court of Justice, in procedural terms both in terms of the substance and the letter of the European Treaties.
In February, the European Court of Justice ruled that waste incineration in municipal waste incinerators could not be counted as a form of recovery, even if energy was generated as a result. The Council, however, instead of increasing recycling or environmentally sound recovery to meet the recovery target, insisted on putting incineration on an equal footing with recovery, contrary to the ECJ ruling.
Although this issue was not a subject for conciliation as no parliamentary amendment to the Council’s common position had been adopted, by bringing it into the conciliation process the Council violated Article 251(4) of the EC Treaty. My Group very much disagrees with the procedure and the result of the conciliation.
We also find it very alarming that incineration, which we consider detrimental to the environment, has actually now been included as something to aim for."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples