|
Accueil
>
Député européen (Verts, France)
>
Juridique
> Mes propositions d’amendements pour la commission Juridique sur la Directive (...) (http://lipietz.net/?article1486)
par Alain Lipietz | 17 avril 2005 Mes propositions d’amendements pour la commission Juridique sur la Directive Bolkestein
Sommaire
Article 2, Paragraph 2 new indents (d) and (a) Amendement 1
Justification Services of general interest should not be covered because of national considerations of public interest. Services of general economic should be subject to a specific Directive according to article 122 of the Constitution. Amendement 2Article 16, Paragraph 1
Justification The concept of country of origin principle contradicts both the spirit and the letter of the treaties and of the Constitution. The country of origin principle will lead to social and environmental dumping. With this principle without prior harmonisation, service providers will tend to establish themselves in Member States with the lower standards. With this type of legislation the European Union would renounce to convergence as a central characteristic of its internal market. The choice of consumers would be reduced because consumers will tend to buy from their local providers considering that the directive will impose to know the legal systems of 25 countries There has been no serious legal impact study and the application of the origin principle would create many legal uncertainties. For instance, compatibility with Rome 1 and 2 convention is uncertain : in case of environmental damage, for example, Rome 2 provides that the applicable law is the law of the country where the damage has taken place, and this is not compatible with the Country of origin principle. This principle is also incoherent with the objective of simplification because it will oblige national administrations and judiciary systems to be aware of 25 different national legislations, which will lead to more (and not less) bureaucracy. This Directive as the entire European construction should be based on the principle of the host country principle, so that the customer could ignore the origin country and that commodities of any national origin could be treated equally in a single spot. Amendement 3Article 16
Justification The country of origin principle could lead to social and environmental dumping. The choice of consumers will be reduced because consumers will tend to buy from their local providers considering that the directive will impose to know the legal systems of 25 countries There has been no serious legal impact study and the application of the origin principle would create many legal uncertainties. For instance, compatibility with Rome 1 and 2 convention is uncertain : in case of environmental damage, for example, Rome 2 provides that the applicable law is the law of the country where the damage has taken place, and this is not compatible with the Country of origin principle. Labour relations are subject to the Posting Directive. |
|
||||||||||