Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-01-30-Speech-3-300"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080130.24.3-300"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, an essential aspect of the revision of the rules on the Structural Funds, which the Committee on Regional Development has carried out successfully, was to make the promotion of territorial cooperation the priority objective of our cohesion policy, whose funding, I note, was increased by the European Parliament as part of the negotiations on the financial perspective. Because of this the calling of this debate cannot come as a surprise to anyone: it was unanimously called for by the political Groups, and I am opening it on behalf of the Regional Development Committee. I thank the Commissioner for attending and regret that the Council has been unable to join us in a debate which affects it directly.
It is common knowledge that it is the European Commission’s duty and responsibility to ensure effective implementation of European law and to intervene to remove barriers which may hinder its implementation.
Explanations, suggested informally, that the principle of subsidiarity prevents measures being taken against defaulting States will not be accepted: if they were, the Member States could delay or refuse to implement any Community legislation which they viewed as inappropriate or subject to challenge.
Therefore, Mrs Hübner, through our question to the European Commission we demand that Parliament should be clearly informed of the problems encountered by the Member States in the implementation of this regulation.
Which Member States are not introducing the measures necessary for this regulation to be implemented appropriately, and what measures has the European Commission taken or is it considering taking, specifically initiation of infringement proceedings before the European Court of Justice to ensure that all Member States comply with the regulation and to prevent the funds allocated being jeopardised by some States’ inability to comply with the established rules?
Drawing on the experience we gained during the years of the INTERREG Programmes we can conclude that the absence of an initiative-taking structure with its own legal personality has hindered its effectiveness, and we welcome the Commission proposal to establish European groupings of territorial cooperation as instruments with their own legal personality.
In a united Europe of States and citizens, regions, as the Treaty of Lisbon says, have their highest form of expression in these bodies.
Admittedly, even when under examination by the Council a number of Member States expressed reservations about the usefulness of European groupings of territorial cooperation.
It is up for debate whether the nature and content of the regulation as adopted are too vague, and whether it introduced a degree of legal uncertainty by making its application subject to domestic law in too many instances.
It might be said that the way that some Member States deal with a complex situation depends on their degree of decentralisation, which requires them to identify strategies in the field of territorial cooperation.
However, it should be noted that Regulation 1082/2006 was adopted in July 2006, one year after it was adopted unanimously by the European Parliament on a proposal from our colleague Jan Olbrycht, and has been binding in all Member States since 1 August 2007.
The Member States therefore had six months to make the necessary legislative arrangements.
According to the information available, however, and the Commissioner will correct me if I am wrong, not even ten Member States have taken the necessary measures to ensure that the regulation has full effect now."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples