Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-18-Speech-3-160"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-01-18"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Explanations of vote2
dcterms:Language	"fi"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060118.17.3-160"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-01-18-Speech-3-1612
lpv:speaker	lp:Eija-Riitta Korhola2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; ENVI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; AFET (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Kansallinen Kokoomus (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; CONT (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 member; DROI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, annoyingly, my speech had to end as time ran out, and I would like to remedy that. I will read what I meant to say, so that environmental organisations will not misunderstand what I said: An example of this is the letter that came this week from the biggest environmental organisations, which gives a misleading picture of the right to access to justice that is now possibly opening up to them. They mention that industrial countries are able to institute proceedings in the Court of Justice of the European Communities, and now this legislation would only bring them to the same level. The letter fails to mention that at present the environmental organisations do by no means aspire to the same level as companies, regarding which there is a call for this decision to affect them ‘directly and individually’, in other words, as an interested party. Instead, the environmental organisations should now be able to choose, within the entire Union and ignoring criteria relating to interested parties, which area they are interested in. It was misleading that this essential detail was left unsaid."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph