Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-16-Speech-2-116"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991116.7.2-116"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, creating a uniform judicial area is one of the European Union’s fundamental tasks. It must afford the citizens protection and safety, indeed security on which they can rely. Otherwise the people will not feel at home in a Europe moving towards further integration and they will reject it. The uniform European judicial area must therefore be more than judicial cooperation between the Member States on the basis of international treaties. It must be coherent, guarantee an equally high level of protection everywhere and, above all, rule out any form of discrimination, even if it is only procedural in nature.
The Treaty of Amsterdam has enabled us to take a sizeable step forwards. In principle, it has “communitarised” judicial cooperation in civil matters. Instead of turning to international treaties in this field, the Member States must now reach for the European legal instruments, i.e. regulations and directives, which come into being with the participation of the European Parliament as the elected forum representing the people. We now have before us, in this draft regulation on family law, an important component of the European judicial area. When we have finished with it, it will be possible to make it available for inspection, for the Commission has produced a good proposal. It is no contradiction that I, as rapporteur, should, nevertheless, consider it necessary for a series of amendments to be made which the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, – please spare me having to use the correct name, which is unpronounceable – has unanimously approved.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to digress and touch on the matters of everyday life with which our legislation concerns itself. Breaking down borders between the Member States has not only created an internal market in Europe that is enabling the economy to flourish, it has also afforded the citizens of Europe a hitherto unknown degree of freedom. An ever increasing number of people are taking advantage of this new-found mobility. They get to know each other, find they like each other and pair off. Love has its own rules and develops at a pace that legislation has trouble keeping up with. This becomes clear only when there is a splitting up of partnerships that spanned the boundaries created by nationality and systems of laws. For it is then that former partners and different systems of laws quickly come to oppose each other as adversaries with all the unpleasant consequences this entails, children often being the ones to suffer most.
You will all be familiar with the kind of headlines we see when conflicts of this kind escalate to a point where people abduct their own children. Laws cannot stop people falling out and suffering the consequences. What laws can do though is to help keep this suffering within certain boundaries and ensure that there is no additional suffering owing to the application of differing, incoherent laws. The vagaries of the process alone can bring people to the point of despair, for example when it comes to the place of jurisdiction or the recognition of judgements. The Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility for joint children represents an attempt within the scope of the law to help alleviate and avoid the suffering engendered by broken partnerships.
It was my responsibility, as a rapporteur within the European Parliament, to ensure that the required regulation attains its goals without it becoming as incomprehensible to the citizens of Europe as its title. This is the light in which we are to view those amendments which, as has already been mentioned, were unanimously approved in committee following intensive discussions. There was only one point on which opinion differed at the end of the vote in committee, that of giving a child the opportunity to be heard in custody proceedings. I personally consider it imperative for a child to be heard if we are to do all we can to secure his or her welfare. An alternative view is that this goal can be achieved by different methods.
Working together with Mr Watson, I have now arrived at a solution that takes account of both views. I would expressly like to extend my thanks to Mr Watson for this, for he too is particularly concerned with the welfare of children, who are often the ones to suffer most when couples separate. I intend to table the compromise we have reached as an oral amendment at the vote, and it is my hope that this distinguished Chamber will lend its support to this process tomorrow. It goes without saying that we should also adopt the amendment then.
There is also another way in which we could lend added value to the regulation, although it is a point on which the European Parliament does not have the power to decide, only to request. As you are already aware, three Member States are not, in principle, party to the legally relevant acts of Title IV, in accordance with the Additional Protocols to the Treaty of Amsterdam, and are therefore not bound by them. However, two of these States are prepared to adopt the regulation we are discussing today. I urge the remaining State to accept the regulation as well. For if it were to do so then we would have taken a considerable step forward in terms of standardisation of family law within the European Union.
On a final note, permit me to emphasise three points, in respect of which it was important to me, following numerous discussions with those affected and with lawyers, to improve the Commission’s sound proposal. Firstly, when conflicts occur, the welfare of the children must be paramount and all other interests must take second place. Secondly, there must be no discrimination where disputes are concerned. The law must afford everyone, wherever they happen to be in the European Union, a comparably high level of individual protection. Thirdly, the jurisdiction of courts must be unambiguous and easily understandable. There must be no possibility of the recognition and enforcement of judgements being used as weapons of revenge. I believe I have the support of the Commission and I would like to thank all those who, by virtue of their constructive cooperation, made things easier for me with this report outside the parliamentary routine. In addition, I would like, just this once, here in this Chamber, to sing the praises of the Council, which likewise put all its weight behind this issue and made known its view that we need to reach a sound decision here with all due haste."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Gebhardt (PSE ),"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples