Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-22-Speech-3-170"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050622.19.3-170"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Chairman of the Committee on Petitions, Mr Libicki, has asked me to state the following on his behalf, due to his sudden departure for Poland. Everything which is said only reflects the position of the Committee on Petitions and not that of any political group or of me personally. The Chairman, Mr Libicki, asks the House and the committee to excuse his absence.
The European Parliament is waiting for the European Commission to decide if European citizens have rights and to investigate if the United Kingdom has applied the laws on the proper regulation and control of the insurance market over the last two decades and if solvency requirements existed at that time. Reply please, Commissioner; not you personally, of course. Remember that your predecessor only went into action when he came under pressure, instituting infringement proceedings which were later withdrawn when the United Kingdom complied. Reply, on behalf of your institution, before Parliament; reply above all on the question of compliance by the country in question over this specific period.
The debate this evening, moved by the oral question tabled on behalf of the Committee on Petitions, touches the very core that many people have in mind when they talk of a Europe of the citizens or, more specifically, of European nationality.
The right to petition, as enshrined in the Treaty, implies obligations for all the European institutions, not just Parliament. Every citizen has the right to petition Parliament within the framework of the activities of the European Union and to expect a satisfactory response; to expect that, where there is infringement in matters which touch on the competences of the European Union, there will be reparation.
The debate on the petitions relating to the Lloyd's affair seeks an honest reply from the Commission, as the guardian of the Treaties.
If a European law has not been applied correctly by a Member State for a great many years; if, indeed, incorrect application has also resulted in serious personal losses and, in certain cases, pushed people to the point at which they end their lives; if it is true that the petitioners in the Lloyd's affair in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany and numerous other countries in the European Union suffered huge financial losses because the First Non-Life Insurance Directive was not applied correctly, then this matter must make all of us think about how Europe operates.
Citizens have the right to expect that, when the Council and Parliament adopt legislation, it is applied correctly in the Member States of the European Union without exception. It has come to our attention that the petitioners in 1997 in the United Kingdom have stated that the Community Non-Life Insurance Directive was late being introduced.
On this subject, after a long interval, Parliament took exceptional measures, approving the report by Mr Roy Perry in September 2003 by 358 for, no votes against and 35 abstentions. Long and detailed enquiries followed by the Committee on Petitions and yet, despite all this, the petitioners are still waiting for a clear answer to the questions raised in the Perry resolution, so that they can finally proceed with their case before the courts in Great Britain and seek compensation for the losses which they have sustained.
If the European Parliament needs to refer the European Commission to the Court of Justice of the European Communities, because it failed to reply to our question and because it failed to render proper account to the European Parliament, then I believe that we should do so without fear, Mr Libicki says.
The question at issue is a question of the European Commission's rendering proper account to the European Parliament and, consequently of the European Parliament's rendering proper account to the citizens, more and more of whom are filing petitions. Is our usual legislation good enough and is it correctly applied? Is there free movement of goods and persons and recognition of professional qualifications? Do European citizens have rights? That is the substance of this evening's debate."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples