Mr President, Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi has just put the Commissioner in the dock and, in this case, while we are talking about interinstitutional balance, all the Commission has done is to have tabled a proposal for a directive. It is Parliament and the Council who have to approve this proposal for a directive and examine, amongst other things, a suitable legal basis for it. Therefore, it is not a question of accusing the Commission of having committed any irregularity. Above all, it cannot be accused of any irregularity because the Commission, in this case, has simply tabled a proposal for a directive which revises three previous directives on the content of certain products in tobacco and certain warnings on the packaging of those products. Therefore, there is really nothing new here. The only new thing is that there has been a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, of 5 October, in which the Court of Justice says that, with regard to another completely different directive, that is, the Directive on tobacco advertising, the legal basis of the current Article 95 – which was formerly Article 100a – was not suitable. The reason why the Court of Justice deems this legal basis to be unsuitable is that it believes that, by means of this legal basis, there is a danger of attempts being made to side-step a specific prohibition in another article of the Treaty – which has also changed number: from Article 129 to Article 152 in the current text – in accordance with which, any harmonisation of national provisions was prohibited. The Court of Justice is therefore trying to prevent any contrivance by means of which this subterfuge could be employed. However, in this case, this situation does not apply because the proposal for a directive, like the previous directives already in force, intends, in fact, to remove existing barriers to the functioning of the internal market. Therefore, their correct legal basis is the former Article 100a or the current Article 95. The rapporteur, Mr Maaten, has, with good reason, proposed reinforcing that legal basis with a reference to another article, Article 133 on external trade, and furthermore has proposed a series of amendments to some of the articles with the aim of preventing this directive being challenged on the basis of the case-law established by the judgment of the Court of Justice. I would like to point out that the judgment of the Court of Justice has been guided by too literal an interpretation of the text. This judgment has several questionable aspects but, accepting the judgment as it stands – since we have no choice, given that the court of Justice is the highest body qualified to interpret Community law – there is nothing to prevent this Parliament from declaring itself in favour of the proposed legal basis of Article 95 with Article 133, and introducing the amendments to which I have referred, which include the rapporteur’s amendments. Of course, on behalf of the Socialist Group, and specifically the Socialist Members of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, who voted against this majority opinion to which Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi has just referred, I must say that we consider that taking this route, rejecting the proposal for a directive, as proposed in two amendments, Amendments Nos 52 and 53, tabled by Mr Poettering, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party, by Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi and another 32 MEPs, would lead to a serious restriction on the European Parliament’s legislative powers. Therefore, I am not concerned so much at the moment with health issues, which are, of course, important and considerable, as with the constraints that would result from our accepting such a restrictive interpretation of the legislative powers which this European Parliament would have. I believe that such a restrictive interpretation would practically lead to the elimination of the legislative powers of this institution and of the Council. I do not believe we can take such a restrictive route, that is to say, independently of the content – and the substantial content which has been highlighted by Mr Maaten and others – that there is a danger that, if this Parliament and the Council accept the restrictive interpretation proposed by the leader of the European People’s Party and Mrs Palacio Vallelersundi, this Parliament, the Council and the Community institutions as a whole would be tying their hands and feet with regard to the legislative development of the Community institutions, which is so important to the development of Community law. For this reason, we Socialists support the amendments tabled by Mr Maaten and we reject, of course, Amendments Nos 52 and 53 by the Group of the European People’s Party.

Political group: PSE