Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-22-Speech-3-171"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050622.19.3-171"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, the question of the regulation of Lloyd’s and the application of the First Non-Life Insurance Directive in the United Kingdom has been debated before in this Chamber. I refer to Oral Question B5-0010/2004 by Mr Perry, which was debated by Parliament on 12 February 2004, and to the answer given by the Commission on that occasion.
The Commission has always expressed the greatest sympathy for the thousands of individuals – including the petitioners – who have suffered as a result of the Lloyd’s affair. The Commission’s views and concerns relating to the pre-2000 UK legislation were set out clearly in its letter of formal notice of December 2001, which is now a public document.
The UK authorities informed the Commission that new legislation had been enacted to replace the former regime and answered further Commission questions relating to that new legislation. The Commission then announced that it was satisfied that those aspects of the regulatory and supervisory regime for Lloyd’s under examination were compatible with the requirements of the directive.
The Commission has no doubt that once it had established the compatibility of the new regime for Lloyd’s it had no basis for continuing the infringement proceedings it had begun with the letter of formal notice in December 2001 in relation to the old regime. The Court of Justice’s jurisprudence on the purpose and conduct of infringement proceedings is quite clear. The Commission has always stressed to complainants that any action seeking damages for alleged incompatibility under the former regime must be undertaken exclusively before the United Kingdom courts.
In order to help them in their litigation in the UK against the UK Government, the petitioners and many correspondents seem to seek a ruling from the Commission on the compatibility or incompatibility of the former Lloyd’s regime. However, only the Court of Justice can give such rulings. The Commission voiced its concerns in its 2001 letter of formal notice but this was only the first step in a long process of argument and counter-argument that might ultimately, if it had been continued, have led to a formal hearing and ruling at the Court of Justice.
The Commission is fully aware that it is a subject of great regret to many that the legal proceedings begun with our letter were not pursued to their ultimate conclusion, but it has no doubt that its decision to discontinue the proceedings was the right one and was fully in conformity with the constant jurisprudence of the Court in the matter of infringement proceedings.
I have taken note of the motion for a resolution tabled for the purpose of winding up tonight’s debate on this question. The Commission believes that the points addressed to it in Mr Perry’s report, to which the draft resolution makes reference, have all been answered. The Commission made its views on the UK authorities’ responses to the letter of formal notice public when it decided to close the infringement procedure.
As to the access to documents retained by the Commission, I stress that these are governed by Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. The conditions for gaining access to these documents are set out in that regulation.
As to the third question in Mr Perry’s report about possible shortcomings or omissions in the UK regime, I reiterate that the Commission raised a number of questions in its letters of formal notice. I stress, however, that these were only questions. Such questions do not, in themselves, constitute an opinion or judgement. The answers provided by the UK authorities satisfied the Commission and led it to decide that there were no grounds to pursue the infringement procedure."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples