Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-09-Speech-1-131"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090309.18.1-131"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I believe the debate we are having this evening is useful in clarifying certain points: firstly, the fact that the debate on European private companies is being held at the same time as the debate on small European businesses does not mean that a European private company is necessarily a small European business.
As Mrs van den Burg said, and I believe that Mr Wurtz also highlighted the point in his criticism of the proposal, the European private company statute, as conceived in the Commission proposal and as approved within the Committee on Legal Affairs, is an instrument for the creation of undertakings which may be large and which have certain characteristics, such as limitation of the liability of the partners and the prohibition on trading in these undertakings on public markets. Both European private company status and national private company status, however, may apply to small businesses or to large ones.
As Mrs van den Burg said, it is precisely the flexibility or malleability of the European private company that means we must be extremely cautious. This has been the task of the Committee on Legal Affairs. The amendments adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs, which are quite numerous, are designed precisely to prevent the European private company formula from forming a basis for, as Mrs van den Burg was saying, the emergence of a European Delaware. This is particularly relevant to one of the subjects of concern to Mr Wurtz: workers’ participation in companies.
I think that the wordings adopted within the Committee on Legal Affairs point out these restrictions clearly. It is not a question, as Mr Wurtz was saying, of applying the country of origin rule, but rather, in accordance with the rules that we adopted in the Committee on Legal Affairs – and I would recommend that Mr Wurtz read the amendments we adopted – there is a set of restrictions preventing the country of origin rules from applying to those companies in which there is a higher level of workers’ participation than normal. They are included in full in the amendments that we have adopted and I believe that, with these amendments, it is wholly admissible to adopt the text, even from Mr Wurtz’s viewpoint.
In other words, we are dealing with a form of European company that exists in all our countries, which ought to be harmonised in the context of the European Union. We must not, however, in doing so, allow these companies to become virtual entities, but they must exist within the context of national situations and comply with national legislation, particularly within such a delicate sphere as workers’ co-determination.
I believe that the text adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs makes some crucial contributions and, therefore, the Commission would be mistaken not to take these amendments into account.
I believe that the amendments by the Committee on Legal Affairs are directed, precisely, at limiting the shortcomings in the Commission’s text, and I believe that Parliament can adopt it in good conscience, not only because of the progress it makes in the context of small companies, but also in view of the management of this type of company, which exists under law and which would be subject to rigorous scrutiny by workers in a system of co-determination."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples