Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-19-Speech-3-085"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-01-19"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:VOTE2
dcterms:Language	"da"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000119.4.3-085"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-01-19-Speech-3-0862
lpv:speaker	lp:Freddy Blak2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation to the EU-Lithuania Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Socialdemokratiet (1999-07-20--2002-12-08)3 substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; CONT (1999-07-21--2001-12-11)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2001-12-18)3
lpv:translated text	". We have voted today against establishing a European Public Prosecutor’s Office for the following reasons. We are not in favour of a common European criminal law or authority. We start from the view that crime can be combated just as effectively with the existing tools, including Europol and the Treaties on Extradition and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. In reality, there are not such major differences between criminal law in the different Member States that these cannot be overcome by using the existing intergovernmental tools. We are able, nonetheless, to fully concur with the criticism of the ten Member States which have still not ratified the Fraud Convention of 1995. We do not believe that there is a legal basis in the Treaty for establishing a European Public Prosecutor’s Office. There is no warrant for introducing an authority affecting the Member States’ criminal law or rules concerning the administration of justice. An alternative to the European Public Prosecutor could be Eurojust, as proposed at the Tampere Summit: a coordinated unit consisting of national public prosecutors and designed to support investigations into criminal matters. We welcome this initiative. It is precisely such practical cooperation that is required. The European Public Prosecutor was, to begin with, only to deal with crimes committed by EU employees. In reality, there is a greater need for a fundamental reform of staff regulations and disciplinary procedures. It is only the most serious matters which will have consequences in criminal law. Ninety per cent of issues will be disciplinary matters concerning negligence or incompetence. There is a need instead for proper internal supervisory procedures and a review of employees’ immunity."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph