2. Is of the opinion that soft law cannot, on the other hand, replace formal law; notes that soft law appears at first sight to be legally non-binding, but can give rise to a ‘political commitment’ that can even assume the character of a legally binding obligation; considers that democracy and the imperative of the rule of law therefore require the legislature, Parliament and the Council, to be involved whenever obligations are to be imposed on individuals; considers that the parties concerned should likewise not be deprived of the legal protection afforded by the Court of Justice; calls on the Commission to consult with Parliament o ...[+++]n how Parliament may be consulted before soft law instruments are adopted, in order to enable proposed soft law measures to be scrutinised and to avoid any misuse of powers on the part of the executive;

– (ES) Mr President, my report is a contradiction because I have used a contradictory expression: ‘soft law’. Law is not soft, law is coercive.

H. whereas the problem of soft fruits and cherries first and foremost concerns the new Member States, particularly Poland, which accounts for two-thirds of overall EU production of soft fruits and cherries for processing; whereas it also concerns certain regions of the old Member States where such production is a major sector of agriculture,

G. whereas under Community legislation prior to enlargement in 2004, soft fruits and cherries were not treated as highly sensitive market products and as a result no specific measures were included in the relevant Community policies (CMO in fruit and vegetables, customs policy); whereas since enlargement Community provisions have not been properly adjusted to the new situation prevailing in the Community soft fruits sector,

The European Commission has granted clearance under the European Union's merger control law to the proposed acquisition by Cadbury Schweppes Plc of the soft drinks brands and related businesses of Pernod Ricard SA. The proposed transaction does not give rise to any competition concerns in the market for soft drinks, given the existence of strong competing international brands of soft drinks in Europe, such as The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo International, Unilever, Groupe Danone and Nestlé, as well as of local brands.

However, allow me to express my surprise at the fact that, among the keen advocates of this report, especially in the parliamentary committee, I also discovered the names of MEPs from, for example, several Belgian parties in office who, in their own countries, support an actual policy to legalise soft drugs and implement such a policy by adopting an extremely flexible policy of tolerance, on the one hand, and by launching various specific propaganda campaigns promoting the use of soft drugs, on the other. This even includes the Minist ...[+++]ers of parties in office who, via the mass media, openly admit to using soft drugs and who even light up joints while on television.