Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-30-Speech-2-276"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040330.11.2-276"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, we have here this evening a joint debate on all three pillars of the Århus Convention. I welcome this debate, and also the Commission proposal for a directive. In signing the Århus Convention, the
Community demonstrated its will to improve environmental law and also involve the public in environmental decisions in an entirely different way. The forthcoming ratification means that the
Community is actually duty bound to ensure that citizens and NGOs are able to enjoy this right in accordance with Community law, which is a very good thing.
Although the
Community and the Member States signed the Convention back in 1998 and it entered into force in 2001, it has only been ratified by a few of the EU Member States. It is now high time that the public and the NGOs were given access to justice in environmental matters, and also to information, of course, and participation in decision-making, which is discussed in the report by Mrs Korhola. This will play an important part in rendering environmental policy much more effective in the EU. It will improve management of, and compliance with, environmental regulations, speed up implementation, and improve environmental management. How can we say that so confidently? Indeed, there are actually studies showing that, in countries offering the opportunity of bringing environmental proceedings and reviewing the application of environmental law, environmental law has become much stricter: there is a direct link.
According to the intentions of Agenda 21, which are also a guiding thread for the Commission, it is individuals, not the authorities, who own their environment. For the first time, environmental law and human rights are being linked up, and I think that this is a positive development. It is also true that we have a responsibility towards future generations.
The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy has voted in favour of the Directive constituting a minimum framework and Member States being free to go further and provide broader access to justice. I think that that is an excellent proposal. Environmental proceedings must apply to both public authority handling and the criminal dimension, since the Århus Convention does not make a distinction between civil and criminal proceedings, and I do not really understand why the Commission wishes to make this distinction here.
We disagree on a number of points; this is clear from the amendments to this Directive. For example, I do not think that EU law should introduce new, unnecessary restrictions such as those on qualified entities
That would force countries that currently take a very liberal view to introduce restrictions. I cannot, therefore, accept the amendments tabled by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, to which Mrs Korhola referred. These concern Articles 8 and 9, among others, and set out new criteria and procedures that are not at all present in the Århus Convention. In my opinion, this would create new obstacles, and I do not understand the need for this.
Nor do I understand why we should adopt geographical and time limitations or restrictions, which are also specified in Articles 8 and 5, regarding legal standing. For example, both the Commission proposal and Amendment No 32 by the PPE-DE Group require an entity to be active in an area in order to have access to documents or the judicial authorities there. I think that this is absolutely wrong, as the nature of environmental proceedings is completely different today. For example, a small, local environmental organisation might need expert help from an international organisation so, in my opinion, that entails restrictions. In my view, being an independent and non-profit-making legal person should be sufficient to qualify for permission to bring legal proceedings for the protection of the environment and health.
It is also very important that the definition of ‘environmental law’ apply to all policy areas and not just Article 175, to which this proposal refers. All environmental law based on Article 95 would also be covered, of course.
Lastly, I should just like to say something about costs. I have proposed that costs must on no account be an obstacle to the ability of an entity to bring legal proceedings. We must ensure that the public is granted the help and support it needs. When legal proceedings are brought for reasons of public interest, the cost must not constitute an obstacle. We must be very generous in this regard. I hope, therefore, that my fellow Members vote in favour of the proposals that I have outlined, so that we can establish effective legislation that does not create new obstacles, but instead fulfils our aim of improving environmental law in the EU."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples