Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-09-06-Speech-2-273"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050906.33.2-273"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
As you know, the Commission presented a proposal for a directive on 15 March 2001 to combat offences that damage the environment. In particular, this proposal specifies that Member States shall ensure that certain activities are criminal offences, when committed intentionally or with serious negligence, as far as they breach the rules of Community law. It particularly refers to the fraudulent cross-border transport of waste referred to by the honourable Member in his question.
On 27 January, however, the Council adopted, instead of this proposal for a directive, a framework decision based on Title VI of the Treaty on European Union. This text criminalises a number of actions that damage the environment, committed either intentionally or by serious negligence, and makes them liable to criminal penalties. This list of offences includes the unlawful disposal, treatment, storage, transport, export or import of waste, including hazardous waste, which causes or is likely to cause death or serious injury to any person.
The Member States had to adopt the measures necessary to comply with this framework decision before 27 January 2005. The Commission is currently studying the national transposition measures notified to it by the Member States in order to provide the Council, as specified by the framework decision, with a report enabling it to check, no later than by 27 January 2006, the extent to which Member States have taken the measures necessary to comply with the framework decision.
That said, the Commission, which, with the support of the European Parliament, went to the Court of Justice of the European Communities to challenge the legal basis adopted by the Council, is waiting for the judgment to be delivered shortly, on 13 September I believe. As Mr Staes mentioned, on 26 May 2005 the Advocate-General delivered conclusions that are very favourable to the Commission’s position, as Mr Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer suggests that the Court annul the relevant provisions of the framework decision of 27 January 2003. If the Court follows its advocate-general, a new legal instrument, this time a Community one, will have to be adopted to protect the environment through criminal law, including to prevent the fraudulent cross-border transport of waste."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples