Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-09-15-Speech-3-027"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19990915.3.3-027"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, the Council Presidency’s tour of capitals has identified three areas about which the President-in-Office has spoken this morning: asylum and immigration, the fight against cross-border crime and the establishment of a European judicial area. I would like to deal with each one briefly in turn.
The political challenge in asylum and immigration is striking a balance between the need to safeguard asylum as an individual right and to ensure the proper protection of refugees and the desire to resist economic migration. Europe needs a common policy on migration. At the very least we need minimum common standards. Those must be based on the 1951 Geneva Convention and on the UNHCR guidelines. We must avoid the lowest common denominator approach which would lead to a downward spiral in the level of protection. The European Union must show that it will not become a fortress, terrified of infection from without, but that it will remain a refuge for the dispossessed.
Events in recent years show us how easily situations of mass influx of refugees can come about. We need a clear message from Tampere on disentangling asylum from the debate on migration. A temporary protection regime is fine but only in exceptional circumstances and must not be one which denies the right to individual examination of asylum claims. Let us make sure that we are not moving back to asylum at political discretion but that we still regard asylum as a human right.
(
)
In the fight against cross-border crime it is clear that Europol has a role. Let us get it going. But it is only part of the solution. There are other ways to strengthen police cooperation such as the idea of a European police staff college. And there are ways to strengthen judicial cooperation. For example, some of the ideas that have been put forward under the title “Eurojust”, bringing prosecutors and magistrates from different countries together to prosecute cross-border crime. We need to determine the precise role, powers and financial implications of Eurojust and the issue of accountability. We need to maintain a balance between the prosecution of offences and the protection of the rights of defendants.
Much has been said about making life more difficult for the criminal but harmonising offences and penalties is an ambitious project. It has been compared to the 1992 Single Market Programme. It merits study, but let us not make the best the enemy of the good. Let us also look at progress on mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters.
I would challenge you, President-in-Office, to define the European judicial area. It seems in matters of civil law to be about making access to justice easier. There are opportunities for concrete progress in cross-border litigation. We have already a certain degree of harmonisation: certain conventions are being worked on, for example, on driving disqualification. Much can be done on mutual recognition too. But when the European judicial area is looked at in the criminal field we are perhaps talking about operating as though there were no legal boundaries within Europe. When we deal with harmonisation of criminal law the key concept is full confidence in each other’s legal systems. Here we need common minimum standards and safeguards, for example, on the treatment of suspects in custody. We need a rigorous and transparent evaluation of criminal justice systems in the Member States. We need a form of inspection and evaluation to build confidence, perhaps similar to the Schengen test on border controls. We need to invest in judicial systems such as in the training of judges and magistrates. I would commend to the Presidency the proposal for a system of Euro bail where people could be granted bail while they await trial and serve the period of bail in their home state.
In conclusion, President-in-Office, the scale of the agenda you have for Tampere is wide, the contributions from the Member States are many and varied. Your ideas seem not yet completely formed so you will forgive us if we are sceptical about the prospects for success. We need the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers there if we are to have real progress. We need the European Parliament involved. That means giving us full access to documentation as the debate develops. Finally, we need from Tampere a summit that will carry public opinion, that will tailor its ambitions to the human and financial resources available but will give us guidelines to demonstrate the relevance of the area of freedom, security and justice to ordinary people
(
)"@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples