Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-25-Speech-3-262"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061025.24.3-262"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the recent incident of the dumping of toxic waste in Côte d’Ivoire has drastic consequences. At least 10 people died and thousands were poisoned and needed hospital treatment.
Similarly, within the framework of the first pillar, national application measures come under the control of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, which does not apply to third pillar measures. A directive on environmental protection through penal law – within the framework of the first pillar – will provide better environmental protection and, at the same time, is a more democratic method in the legislative procedure. Unfortunately, in the meantime, valuable time has been lost. Environmental crimes are still being committed and we must adopt the necessary legal measures to combat them.
We have analysed and discussed in the Commission the various options for following up the Court ruling. We examined two options in particular: for the Commission 2001 proposal to stay as it is and for us to call on the other institutions to continue the codecision procedure or for a new Commission proposal to be submitted. We preferred the second option, in order to take account of the Court ruling. The initial proposal dates from 2001, since when numerous changes have been made to environmental legislation; consequently, the proposal needs to be adapted accordingly.
Finally, there have been new developments in the field of European cooperation on penal law matters, which also need to be taken into account in the proposal. We must ensure that the proposal is in keeping with other penal acts adopted at European level.
Today we are at the state of preparing the new proposal for a directive on environmental protection through penal law. The first step was, as I said, to examine in detail the Court ruling and its repercussions and for a detailed comparison to be made of the various acts which already apply. We then prepared an impact study comparing the pros and cons of the various options. Following that, the proposal will be finalised and I hope that it will be approved before the end of 2006.
Although the actual circumstances under which this repulsive environmental crime was committed have not yet been clarified, there is now an even more urgent need for the strict application of the ban on exports of dangerous waste to Africa.
The Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, the United Nations and the authorities in Côte d’Ivoire, is seeking in various ways for the damage caused to be restored and for suitable action to be taken to combat the illegal activities which may have taken place.
When the incident occurred, representatives of the Commission – and special teams from the Member States – visited the scene in order to assist the victims and help to protect the natural environment. The Commission is closely monitoring developments in Côte d’Ivoire and is in constant contact with the country's authorities. On Monday I and the Presidency met the delegation from Côte d’Ivoire, which included three ministers.
The institutions and the Member States of the European Union need to examine every possible means of supporting the victims in Côte d’Ivoire and of doing the best they can to eliminate the pollution.
Criminal investigations are being carried out at the moment in various Member States, with which we are in contact. I personally, following the return of the Probo Koala to the European Union, went to the port of Paldiski in Estonia on 28 September in order to support these investigations and obtain the latest information.
If we look beyond the incident in Côte d’Ivoire, we shall see that there is a serious vacuum in compliance by the Member States with the European Union regulation on movements of waste. This regulation contains clear rules banning exports of dangerous waste to developing countries. These rules are to become even stricter and, as of July next year, the Member States will be obliged to conduct on-site controls and inspections and to cooperate in the event of illegal movements of waste. However, the mere fact that rules exist does not mean a thing if they are not also correctly applied in practice. The legal loopholes must be plugged with strict complementary measures pertaining to its proper application. Environmental crime is one of the most serious problems which the Community is called upon to combat. The environmental damage which may be caused is huge. It is often part of international organised crime, which makes it difficult but imperative to stamp out. Provision for effective sanctions, including criminal sanctions, is necessary for the proper application of Community environmental legislation. That is precisely why urgent action is needed at Community level.
In 2001, the Commission submitted a proposal for a directive on environmental protection through penal law. The objective of this proposal was, on the one hand, the introduction throughout the Community of a minimum number of criminal environmental offences and, on the other hand, the punishment of such infringements with effective criminal sanctions in all the Member States. It is a sad fact that the Council did not adopt the Commission proposal. The proposal was based on Article 175 of the Treaty and was to have been approved under the codecision procedure. The Council did not agree with the legal basis and decided to issue a framework decision on the basis of the third pillar, rather than the directive we had proposed. In the opinion of the European Commission, this choice of means was not legally correct and would have made it impossible to control the transposition into national law of the framework decision and the application of it by the Member States.
In clear opposition to the Council, the European Parliament fully supported the Commission proposal and also supported the Commission in the matter when it was referred to the Court of Justice of the European Communities. I wish to highlight the particular importance of this good cooperation between our institutions and I trust that we shall continue in this way as the matter develops. With the ruling by the Court of Justice, it has now been clarified that measures of a penal nature needed in order to safeguard the effective application of environmental policy may be adopted within the framework of the first pillar. The Council's framework decision infringed the Community's powers on the basis of the Treaty and had to be reversed. The European Commission is particularly satisfied with this ruling by the Court. This is not a ruling regulating a simple technical point; it is of decisive importance in clarifying the rules of the Treaty as far as the dividing line between the first and third pillars is concerned. It has major institutional repercussions, because it clarifies that the measures at issue must be taken under the codecision procedure, which means the full participation of the European Parliament."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples