Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-04-Speech-2-370"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060404.26.2-370"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank our rapporteur, Mrs Doyle. Her statement showed how vigorously she has fought, both in committee and in plenary, for this issue, which is of particular importance for Austria and Denmark, because we are the two Member States with stricter regulations in this area. Above all, we have shown that it is possible to have stricter regulations without causing economic damage. I therefore have to ask the Commission why it has once again tried, in its declaration, to pull the plug on European unity.
Environmental policy and popular satisfaction are united, and we in Europe are united. The Commission's attitude therefore greatly surprises me, because we successfully concluded a conciliation procedure between the Council and Parliament. The joint draft of the European Parliament and of the Council, which was approved by the Conciliation Committee on 31 January 2006, provides that Member States may retain national requirements stricter than those foreseen by the Regulation until the end of 2012. The additional paragraph 3 in Article 9 gives the Member States, and in particular Austria and Denmark, the option of retaining their existing further-reaching bans on the placing on the market of fluorinated gases. If such a safeguard clause was not introduced, the Member States would have to revoke the existing bans that go beyond those in Annex II to the regulation, or have them approved by the Commission. Under Article 95(10) of the EC Treaty, harmonisation measures such as the regulation on these fluorinated greenhouse gases may include a safeguard clause temporarily authorising the Member States to take different measures. This authorisation has to be granted pursuant to the process laid down in the regulation and in the form prescribed there. Despite this, however, the Commission does not refer, in its declaration regarding Article 9(3), to the process laid down in the regulation, but repeats the wording of Article 95(4), according to which the stricter national provisions – which, moreover, are justified by recent scientific findings – must be notified to the Commission for approval. I think that this clearly goes too far and does not correspond to what the Council and Parliament agreed."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples