Activities of Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA related to 2020/2027(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Liability of companies for environmental damage (continuation of debate)
Amendments (14)
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. RegretNotes that in many Member States, the budgets of environmental inspectorates have stagnated or decreased due to the financial crisis anddecision has been taken to prioritise resources that limit or freeze the budgets of environmental inspectorates in return for increased provisions to mitigate the effects of the numerous crises that have hit Member States; notes the lack of development of the market itself, probably owing to a lack of incentives for private businesses or the little profit generated by this sector, meaning that even large, well- resourced authorities can find it difficult to independently develop knowledge of the best ways to ensure compliance; is thus of the opinion that strongerthe Union should examine non-financial tools it should promote to receive more support at EU level is needed, for example through accessible information portals, commonly used networks (EU networks for practitioners), best practice information and guidance, additional training programmes, training materials and guidance on skills, as this could increase the pressure on ‘black sheep’ companies and benefit companies that respect the lawin coordination with national authorities;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Takes the view that one of the various causes of the insufficient harmonisation of the ELD is the failure to provide for the application of a standard administrative procedure for notifying competent authorities of imminent threats of or actual environmental damage; regrets therefore that there is no obligation to publish such notifications or information about how cases are dealt with; notes that some Member States have identified this limitation in their national legislation and have consequently set up databases for notifications, incidents and cases; points out, however, that the practice varies greatly from Member State to Member State and is rather limited, mainly on account of the potential discrepancies with data protection regulations, financial disclosure or trade secrets;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Calls for the ELD to be revised as soon as possible and to be transformed into a fully harmonised regulationan assessment of whether it is appropriate, legal and opportune to revise the ELD in order to achieve a level playing field for EU industry;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Believes that most definitions in the ELD should be further clarified to make the directive fair and clear to all stakeRegrets the lack of clarity and precision of most of the regulations drafted at EU level, such as in the case of the definitions in the ELD; considers that the legislator shoulders and to keep pace with simplify and facilitate the drapid evolution of pollutantsfting of EU legislation and even define the objectives of the legislation; welcomes therefore the current efforts to develop a common understanding document (CUD) on key ELD definitions and concepts; regrets, however, that the Commission and the ELD government expert groups did not reach an agreement on its format, meaning that the CUD remains a document produced by the consultancy which was hired by the Commission to support the implementation of the 2017-2020 Multi- annual ELD Work Programme;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Is of the opinion that the optional permit and state-of-the art defences should only be maintained when a company can pro, in any event, the universally recognised presumption of innocence must be respected and that each party, even that it could not have known about the danger of its activity (reversed burden of proof)e authorities, must offer proof to support its claims;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on the Commission to examine the possibility of aligning the ELD with civil liability legislation for corporate boards in cases where a corporate board has taken irresponsible decisions causing environmental damage or when it was aware of, but did nothing to prevent, polluting activities carried out to maximise the profit of the company and increase the bonuses of its members21; _________________ 21E.g. the 'dieselgate' scandal and the case of the CEO of Volkswagen., making the members of corporate boards liable for decisions taken while clearly and irrefutably aware of the adverse consequences on the environment;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Considers that, given the purpose of the ELD is to prevent and remedy environmental damage, a future regulation (Environmental Liability Regulation) should be applicable to all companies that operate in the EU, regardless of where they have been incorporated or where they are based, and that a holistic approach and reciprocity are necessary to meet the needs of companies in a global economy; , whether European or not, that operate in the internal market, even those whose activities have been harmful to the environment outside the EU but intend to undertake or continue operations within the EU, for example, denying them subsidies or banning them from competing in public tenders; considers, furthermore, that the application of the future regulation should be extended to any NGO, foundation or association that receives European, national or regional funds and which causes or may cause environmental damage in the course of its activities;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Is of the opinion that inRecalls that Article 3 of Directive 2008/99 of 19 November 2008 breaks down actions clases of extremely widespread pollution, not just environmental liability instruments, but a multitude of instruments, including administrative measures, financial penalties and in some cases criminal prosecutsified as punishable under criminal law for damaging the environment; welcomes the fact that countries such as Spain have included crimes against the environment in its Criminal Code, such as blatant cases of extremely widespread pollution; welcomes the fact that Annex II of the ELD embodies a common framework so that the most measures can be selected to ensure that environmental damage is remedied; considers that the Commission, should be applied to remedy the problem; publish all resources and tools contained in various EU laws so that Member States can combat and/or prevent any environmental damage;