Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-30-Speech-2-284"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040330.11.2-284"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, why do we need specific legislation to implement the Århus Convention? In our view, it is sufficient on its own, which is why we have tabled a motion to reject the directive on access to justice.
More seriously, this draft introduces some unacceptable measures. First of all, there is the internal review procedure for acts adopted by the European institutions. What is the point of having Members of the European Parliament if their decisions are constantly challenged by NGOs selected by the European Commission, which is also the guardian of the EU Treaties? Then there is the Commission's attempt to interfere in the organisation of national legal systems; this provision is illegal, as it is contrary to Article 175 of the Treaty. Finally, there are the dispensations from both civil and criminal procedure, allowing NGOs to receive aid to take legal action and to avoid the costs, damages and interest payable if they fail: this measure is morally unjust and legally shocking.
In order to maintain sustainable development, I also suggest not restricting the ability to take action just to NGOs, but including those who manage rural areas – landowners, farmers, foresters, enterprises etc. According to Article 9 of the Århus Convention, it is up to the Member States to organise access to justice.
If this draft is adopted, it will inevitably cause implementation difficulties and legal uncertainty, which seems to me to go against the desired aim. To successfully implement this Convention, we must respect the principle of subsidiarity."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples