Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-25-Speech-3-276"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061025.24.3-276"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, what we are actually talking about today is an example of environmental crime of which we are unsure whether it will be prosecuted or not. Moreover, I would say to my fellow MEPs that I would not like to be in a Green-Leftwing alderman’s shoes when discussing the
file; the question is therefore whether prosecution will follow and if so, whether it will also cover Member States. This is the very reason why we have insisted on legislation with regard to criminal law if we want to enforce environmental policy effectively. We therefore feel that condemnation is certainly called for but that the Member States should be able to decide for themselves in what way those sanctions should be imposed. That is how we would like to go forward.
A legislative proposal was submitted six years ago. At the same time, the Council produced its own framework decision, which the Commission and this House suggested should be thrown out, which is exactly what happened a year ago. Last Monday, the Commissioner announced he will produce a fresh proposal, but perhaps the Commissioner could be more specific as to this proposal’s exact content, for this was left a little vague last Monday. I should also like to know from the Council – as I used to be rapporteur – whether the Council is happy to accept a fresh proposal to address environmental crime, for that is the most important question on the agenda here. As there are plenty of examples, a proposal does indeed appear necessary."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples