Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-06-21-Speech-4-014"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070621.4.4-014"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to take this opportunity to thank the rapporteur for his work. I also wish him all the very best in his future work in the French
. I know you had to produce this report in the midst of the electoral campaign, which was no mean feat. So thank you very much.
I am particularly pleased that Parliament and the Council were able to agree on the key elements during the trilogue. It is important that we establish the same binding conditions in all Member States of the European Union. I would like to pick up on a few points that I consider particularly important.
The first point has already been addressed: the length of the standstill period before contracts are concluded. I am glad to hear that there is agreement, but I do think that the ten-day period with an additional five days for postage is pretty short. I would also have liked companies to have been given more time to review the award decision. Companies that do not have a legal department – which are mostly small and medium-sized companies – always find it very difficult and time-consuming to examine a decision to award a contract. I fully agree with Mrs Gebhardt: this is the Council's doing, not Parliament's.
Secondly, I am very pleased that we have agreed to introduce a declaration of ineffectiveness to penalise illegal direct contracts. What is particularly important here is that exemptions on the grounds of public interest should only be authorised for very specific reasons. For example, exemptions justified by public interest are usually only valid if the reasons go beyond purely economic interests. If a Member State chooses to cite economic grounds, the Commission has to be notified. Some Member States are concerned that this will lay the foundations for future infringement proceedings, but it will have quite the opposite effect. As the Council has always emphasised, exemptions are only granted in exceptional circumstances, in which the economic considerations for both contracting parties are so great that it is reasonable to waive the ineffectiveness penalty. Notification is only required in these rare cases. The Member States should be expected to comply with these rules so that the Commission can ensure a uniform application of the directive's provisions throughout the European Union.
Better legislation also entails uniform implementation, and ensuring that the Commission has a clear view of whether this is really happening. This is one of the principles of fairness and is essential for improving the functioning of the internal market.
Before I finish, I would like to thank Mr Fruteau, Mrs Rühle, Mr Schwab and Mr Zillmann again. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the group's assistants and the MEPs who have worked so hard to produce a solid text. I would however be grateful if, in future, this kind of debate could be held in Brussels rather than in Strasbourg."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples