Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-11-30-Speech-3-202"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-11-30"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Imposition of criminal penalties in the event of an infringement of Community law2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20051130.18.3-202"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-11-30-Speech-3-2032
lpv:speaker	lp:Maria Berger2
lpv:spokenAs	member; JURI (2004-07-21--2007-01-10)3 member; PES (2004-07-20--2007-01-10)3 unknown; Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (2004-07-20--2007-01-10)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Canada (2004-09-15--2007-01-10)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia and the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) (2004-09-15--2007-01-10)3 substitute; AFCO (2004-07-21--2007-01-10)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, Commissioner, a number of things have been going on since we tabled our oral question. The Committee on Legal Affairs heard your representatives, and we have now received the communication from the Commission, the substance of which we welcome along with that of the decision by the Court of Justice. I think it is a good thing that the Commission should have stated clearly that this decision by the Court of Justice is applicable in situations other than that which gave rise to it – which was environmental in character –and affects all policies, notably including the four freedoms referred to in the Treaty. There have also been proposals that its applicability be restricted to the objectives of Article 2, something to which I expressed my opposition in the Committee, for which reason I approve of the way the Commission has framed its position on the subject. What we, together, have to sort out is how we will, if it comes to it, go about transferring more acts from the third pillar to the first. You have described the principles behind the two ways in which we might do this. The first would involve not making any substantial changes, but merely changing the legal basis and concluding an inter-institutional agreement to obviate the need to have the content of the whole thing gone through again. The second option would be to have a proper codecision procedure, with the Commission having the opportunity to make substantial alterations to the content, and it is this approach that I favour, subject to what is said in future debates, as being, in my view, more suited to the present day. We have 10 new Member States, who surely also have an interest in now making the contribution to the legal acts that they were, of course, unable to make before accession. Unless, then, I am persuaded that there is a better way of doing it, I am in favour of this matter being dealt with through the normal legislative process."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph