Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-11-Speech-1-158"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061211.15.1-158"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking the honourable Members for their valuable contributions to the debate and for the positive attitude towards the Commission’s proposals.
In conclusion, I can assure you that these issues can and will be urgently and seriously addressed. The Commission is confident that, given the spirit of openness and cooperation that has marked the consultations to date both in Parliament and in the Council, practical and appropriate solutions will be found so that the Modernised Customs Code can enter into force as planned in 2009.
With regard to the customs 2013 programme proposal, I confirm that the Commission fully supports all the amendments proposed by Parliament. I hope that the report by Mrs Fourtou will be adopted tomorrow by a large majority.
Let me finish by repeating that the strong support by the European Parliament for the e-customs proposal will certainly be acknowledged by the Council and speed up the adoption of the proposal.
The Commission has given appropriate consideration to Parliament’s 58 amendments to the Modernised Customs Code and has found the majority – as many as 32 – acceptable, 9 acceptable in principle or in part and only 17 unacceptable.
I would point out that those amendments which the Commission finds unacceptable are related to the key issues that I highlighted earlier and that are commonly debated by both Parliament and the Council.
I must reiterate that as regards customs representation – Amendments 14, 19 and 57 – the Commission maintains that the accreditation of professional customs agents falls outside the scope of the Customs Code. The Commission fully recognises the role played by customs agents in the world of trade. These agents, like any other economic operator, should have the right to exercise their profession in another Member State, and professional competence in one Member State should be recognised in another. This is a basic feature of the single market and essential in an electronic environment.
The Commission is actively working with the professional associations, like CLECAT and CONFIAD, listening to their concerns and trying to find a satisfactory solution. The proposed change offers substantial benefits to business in general, such as increased competition between customs service providers, and opens new and wider business opportunities for customs representatives beyond national borders.
On comitology, I believe that our legal services have come to conclusions that are not too dissimilar. There are indeed a few articles where the Commission considers that the regulatory procedure, its scrutiny, should not apply, but in most cases our institutions’ respective analyses are converging.
I should like to clarify why the Commission cannot support certain amendments. The first I should mention is Amendment 21, which suggests that in Article 22(1), the words ‘administrative and criminal’ be deleted. All Member States impose criminal penalties in customs matters and apply, even if they are not always described as administrative penalties, measures of an administrative nature intended to penalise non-compliance with the customs rules. There is, for example, the withdrawal or suspension of authorisations in case of serious misuse. Such administrative measures play an essential role in the uniform and proportionate application of customs legislation. It is therefore necessary that Article 22(1), continues to refer explicitly to both administrative and criminal treatment of infringements.
The Commission cannot agree with Amendments 23 and 25 relating to customs fees. The Commission’s intentions are simply to limit, as far as possible, the charging of customs fees; in particular, such fees should not be charged for the drawing-up of electronic declarations. On the other hand, we find it inappropriate to prevent the collection of fees where attendance of customs staff is requested beyond the normal office hours. We hold the view that customs fees are only legitimate where customs render a service that goes beyond their normal mission.
I should also mention Amendments 30, 40 and 41, which aim at granting benefits to railway companies. The Commission cannot accept them, because they are going against our efforts to build up a level playing field for all transport operators, be they road, inland waterways or air transporters. In fact, the original proposals are likely to have been misunderstood and I am confident that once further explained their rationale and fairness will become obvious."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples