Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-22-Speech-3-173"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050622.19.3-173"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, during the last term in office, I was a member of the Committee on Legal Affairs and I followed this issue, and then, just as now, I was highly perplexed, because we are talking here about the Commission’s legal responsibilities, in accordance with Article 232 of the Treaty, which relates to the procedure on failure to act, but, according to Article 232, in order for the European Parliament to complain about a violation of the Treaty, it must involve a violation of the Treaty as such.
Of course, this is a Directive that was not adopted by a previous British Government but which was then adopted by a subsequent government, the current government; the Commission began an infringement procedure pursuant to Article 226, the situation was changed, the Directive was incorporated and, from that point, as Commissioner McCreevy has pointed out, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, it was not possible to continue proceedings before the Court, because Article 226 says: ‘If the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under this Treaty, it shall deliver a reasoned opinion on the matter after giving the State concerned the opportunity ...’.
Since the State conformed to the Commission’s opinion, we currently have no case from a legal point of view. That is to say that I have the impression that, as Commissioner McCreevy has said, at this point, the only possibility is to bring an action before the British legal authorities, but not before the Institutions of the European Union. In legal terms, we could say that, as things stand, neither this Parliament, nor the Commission, nor the Court of Justice of the European Union are the appropriate fora for dealing with this kind of complaint.
That, unfortunately, is how the Treaty is worded. We could have a different Treaty, which would impose obligations on the Commission with regard to things that have happened previously, but in this case the case-law of the Court of Justice is clear and that is why I raised objections in relation to this issue and I continue to do so today. That is to say that the Treaty does not authorise the Commission to bring a State before the Court of Justice once the State has conformed to European Union Law. It is not a mathematical or immediate, or automatic, system, but rather the State must firstly be called upon to comply, and when it does so, the procedure comes to an end; from that point, the Commission can do nothing.
My feeling is that, at this point, both the Commission’s previous reply and the reply that Commissioner McCreevy has just given us are entirely satisfactory.
I recommend that the people affected by the Lloyd's case turn to the British courts and take appropriate action in accordance with British Law, but I believe that there is no point in our considering this procedure at this point; it is a huge waste of time for this Parliament and we could go as far as to say that it would also mislead the people affected, because it takes them along a path that will take them nowhere.
The British courts themselves are their only chance of success; in fact I believe actions have already been brought before those courts. This is the only form of action possible. And that is what I recommend to the people involved in this kind of complaint."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples