Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-01-18-Speech-4-045"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070118.4.4-045"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking Mrs Wallis for her pertinent work on this dossier and for her excellent cooperation as the ALDE Group’s coordinator in the Committee on Legal Affairs.
Together with the Rome II Regulation, the EU is establishing a coherent legal framework with regard to relationships between international private laws and other Community instruments. This regulation should promote rather than hamper the proper functioning of the internal market, in particular the free movement of goods and services. I was very unhappy to hear that the negotiations with the Council have been unsuccessful so far, but I am absolutely certain that Mrs Wallis will continue to raise the points of both our committee and Parliament.
I should like to raise two issues in particular. Firstly, the violation of privacy and rights related to the personality, including defamation, should be excluded completely from the scope of Rome II. In the absence of rules protecting editorial independence, exclusion would be the only viable solution that would not undermine press freedom. It is regrettable that the Council did not give its support for this amendment at first reading.
The second issue is an important question of principle – as was the previous issue – notably regarding Article 9 of the proposal regarding industrial action and applicable law that raises specific difficulties for the European maritime and shipping industry. The Swedish Government proposed this article in the spring of 2006, with reference to the European Court of Justice judgment in Case C-18/02. This case concerns questions regarding jurisdiction and choice of law when a ship flying the flag of one Member State is being boycotted in another Member State.
Ships moving around are typically serving harbours of different countries. If industrial action against ships were to be governed by the laws of the different harbours served during a voyage, the rules that would apply would vary all the time, i.e. different rules would form the basis of legality of industrial action taken against a ship. This would both be impractical and create great uncertainty. It is generally the case that all internal relations on a ship are governed by the law of the flag state. Therefore, let us not give these powers to the labour unions, which would certainly use these provisions to blackmail our shippers and hamper the competitiveness of the European seafaring industry."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples