Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-25-Speech-3-473"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090325.34.3-473"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, first may I thank my honourable friends for their very helpful contributions. I think that we all pulled together and achieved a good result.
However, I also want to say quite clearly to the Commission, in order to avoid any misunderstanding: from Parliament’s point of view, there is no question of your tabling a bill that is probably already fit for nothing. Absolutely no question. We expect the Commission to take account of what we have decided today and for it to be included in the actual legislation proposed.
The horizontal approach is not only an important aspect on the basis of the arguments which I expounded earlier; the Commissioner personally also addressed the question of the legal basis. With such an important project, an approach must be chosen which ultimately guarantees that Parliament is involved as a legislator on an equal footing. If an approach based purely on competition law is chosen, that would not be the case under the Treaty of Nice currently in force. This is also a very fundamental political argument in favour of why we consider a horizontal approach to be the right one. I think the Commission should consider this very seriously.
Another decisive point in my opinion is that we still need something on the question of out-of-court settlements. You spoke earlier of convergence with the work of the Directorate-General on Competition. However, if one compares the Green Paper on consumer protection with the White Paper on competition, one does not necessarily get the impression that there is really any such convergence. The most blatant example is the different treatment – or to be more exact the lack of treatment – of out-of-court settlement mechanisms in the White Paper.
There is still a series of other problems which we expect to be resolved. I just want to refer briefly to the question of access to the European Commission’s files. It is possible in all criminal proceedings in which compensation is being claimed to inspect the public prosecutor’s case files. Why does this not apply to the European Commission? It is beyond me.
The same applies to the question of fixing penalties: this also needs to be taken into account from the point of view that it must be possible to claim compensation in future. Here too the Commission urgently needs to rework the text and table more specific texts and proposals than those included so far in the White Paper. May I say quite clearly from Parliament’s point of view, in order to avoid any misunderstanding: we expect more than what is contained in the White Paper and we also expect the Directorate-General on Competition as a whole to follow our suggestions, otherwise there will be resistance in this House."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples