Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-01-18-Speech-4-038"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070118.4.4-038"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I should first like to thank Mrs Wallis for her report. As you know, we have been discussing this proposal for three and a half years, and I feel that, following the improvements made by Parliament and the Council at the two reading stages, this project has now reached maturity, if I may put it that way. Firstly, it would appear that those working in the economic and legal fields are very much looking forward to this regulation that is essential for legal certainty, and secondly, it would appear that this text is of vital importance for the construction of the European area of justice and for the smooth running of the European internal market. This is why your vote, ladies and gentlemen, represents a crucial step for the future of this issue.
The best solution would, to my mind, be to proceed without the conciliation procedure, although were this procedure to prove inevitable, the Commission would deem it essential for all the conditions to be in place after your vote for it to adopt a satisfactory text. I remain confident that a favourable solution can be found with Parliament’s support.
Like you, Mrs Wallis, I regret the absence of special rules on defamation in the Council common position. We reluctantly accepted the removal of that rule. Why? Because it has not been possible to reach a compromise on a text. I should like to point out that over ten different options were on Council’s table in April 2006, not one of which has any chance of success, either now or, probably, in the future.
You will also know that the revision clause has no chance of success. I firmly believe that to accept a provision that cannot obtain even the slightest consensus between the institutions, as several members of the Committee on Legal Affairs have stated, would be to reopen a can of worms. Another important point is that the number of international lawsuits in this area is very limited. Perhaps you know that even associations representing the press ultimately accepted this exclusion in a message sent to me a few days ago.
You touched on other key issues, for example the removal of other special rules on competition and the environment. To be frank, I find it difficult to accept the removal of the special rules in these areas. Special rules are not always appropriate for every situation, but when it comes to competition, the special rule is, in my view, vitally important, because it clarifies the general rule for locating the market concerned. I therefore welcome the fact that the rapporteur from a major political group will now advocate retaining special rules of this kind and will support this drafting proposal. As regards the environment, the special rule is aimed at preventing environmental dumping, and, in the current political climate, the Commission is the guarantor of a very high level of environmental protection. I believe that Rome II can contribute to this.
As for the Council, you will be aware that most Member States that have codified private international law have special rules for these two issues, and the Council advocates not only retaining these two special rules but, like the Commission, its has in fact added further recitals. We are of the same opinion: special rules must reinforce legal certainty.
As regards traffic accidents, I share Parliament's concern to improve the situation of traffic accident victims. This, at least, is one of the objectives contained in its proposal. The Committee on Legal Affairs today proposed a new rule whereby the judge must ensure that compensation is provided for all prejudice sustained. This is a very interesting idea, but I believe that that comes under harmonising the Member States’ material civil law and is no longer a matter of private international law. Rome II is not, in my view, the right framework for such harmonisation, but I can confirm that I want to find a solution to the problem posed by the Committee on Legal Affairs and by Parliament, albeit in a different context of substantial harmonisation. As regards the issue of whether the general rule can lead to satisfactory solutions in this area or whether a new special rule is required, I remain open to the idea of studying this problem in detail, as provided for in Amendment 26 of the Implementation Report.
This quickly leads us on to the issue of implementing foreign law. This is covered by Amendments 12 and 21, and is a vital component of the Hague Programme. Let me reiterate that Rome II is not the right framework for such rules, which should apply to the entire commercial and civil field. More generally, I am happy to commit to carrying out a detailed study of measures aimed at facilitating the implementation of foreign law. The same indeed applies to the directive on the country of origin principle. The Services Directive already preserves the application of the Rome II and Rome I instruments. Accordingly, I do not feel that the rule proposed in Amendment 24 is necessary, not because this principle does not need to be clarified, but because there is already a guarantee."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples