Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-01-19-Speech-3-128"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000119.6.3-128"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as I do not have a background as a Member of the European Parliament, you will understand that it is even more moving for me to be here than it is for my colleague Fernando Gomes.
It is important in this field to implement measures relating to the mutual recognition of judicial decisions, and we believe that on the basis of work already done, it will be possible, at least in the field of seizure of assets, for measures to be adopted in the near future to provide for mutual recognition of judicial decisions.
Lastly then, Europol, which started its work in 1999. The Council approved a set of instruments, with which Parliament is familiar, to make Europol’s operations viable but, of course, the fundamental issues of democratic control and judicial control of Europol still remain, and these are issues which have naturally taken on a new dimension in view of the political decision taken in Tampere to reinforce Europol’s powers and, above all, to give it an operational dimension.
The French Presidency has passed an important working document to us which sets out various scenarios for addressing and resolving the issues of democratic control and judicial control of Europol. The Portuguese Presidency will shortly be presenting a working document on the Eurojust network, since although it is not obviously necessary for judicial control of Europol to be a matter for Eurojust, this option cannot be ruled out at present. For this reason, it is essential that the Council’s debates on the future of Europol and Eurojust should be conducted in parallel, so that conclusions can be reached in parallel also. I believe that in this context, and in the context of the dialogue that the Council and Parliament will have to establish on the future of Europol and Eurojust, it will be possible for us to find an acceptable institutional solution to the relationship between the Council and Parliament with regard to Europol.
We are familiar with Parliament’s views and we know that Parliament is aware of the views of the Council’s legal advisers. I believe that it will be possible to find a definitive solution to this question as part of the process of resolving the issue of democratic control of Europol, and that this solution will encourage and reinforce institutional cooperation between all parties involved.
(
)
As Mrs Terrón i Cusí said in her speech, 1999 was a year of great expectations in the field of justice and home affairs – an expectation realised with the coming into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, an expectation realised with the conclusions of the Tampere Council, and a fundamental expectation, as from this year, that will be realised in the form of specific actions. We are all aware that, to this end, it is essential for the Council to approve, as quickly as possible, the scoreboard which Commissioner Vitorino has the remit of establishing. I must stress once again the Portuguese Presidency’s earnest desire for political agreement to be reached on the scoreboard at the informal Council in Lisbon on 3 and 4 March.
Turning to the specific questions that Mrs Terrón i Cusí has put to us, I shall group them into three basic areas: the fight against organised crime, the operation of the Judicial Network, particularly as regards criminal matters, and questions on Europol.
Regarding the fight against organised crime, 1999 marked the implementation of several important actions stemming from the Vienna action plan, which resulted in the signing of the Charter of European Professional Associations, in developments in cooperation and in establishing points of contact between the Member States for receiving information relevant to the fight against money laundering. And I must not forget the Finnish Presidency’s proposal for a Council decision which is being considered in the Multi-disciplinary Group.
This is an area in which we must carry forward and intensify our work, not just by securing approval for the EU strategy for the fight against organised crime in the new millennium, but also so as to overcome the difficulties associated with the divergence of views that exists, particularly at Council level, on issues concerning the fight against organised crime. With this in mind I must emphasise the importance we attach to the cooperation we are already establishing with the French Presidency, with the aim of organising a Jumbo JHA-ECOFIN Council. If this is not to be a mere media event, it will need to be carefully prepared by a joint committee, the composition of which the Portuguese Presidency has already proposed.
Our relations with third countries represent another important aspect of the fight against organised crime. Here, in addition to the work being done in the group of experts on the Pre-Accession Pact, it is important that it has proved possible to draw up a joint action plan for the fight against organised crime between the European Union and the Russian Federation, a plan which is now being finalised, and to organise meetings of liaison officials from the Member States, in Moscow, and to develop a set of further initiatives.
Another area is EU involvement in the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime and its various protocols, and in the conventions being prepared in the framework of the Council of Europe, in particular on cyber crime. As this is an issue which has become important in the justice and home affairs programme, the presidency believes that it is worthwhile, bearing in mind the principles of Chapter VI of the Treaty, to explore suitable means of providing the European Parliament with improved information on the progress and conclusion of these negotiations under the United Nations Convention.
With regard to the Judicial Network, significant progress has been made, in particular the launch at the end of 1999 of the dedicated telecommunications system of the European Judicial Network, whilst the Multi-disciplinary Group has developed a series of actions to implement the 1997 action plan. However, we must stress that it is vital for approval to be given as soon as possible to the strategy for the new millennium, so as to give a fresh impetus, while preserving continuity, to the work done under the previous action plan.
Still on judicial cooperation, considerable progress has been made on the legal protection of the euro, and the European Parliament is being consulted on a framework decision which is of fundamental strategic importance. We believe that if legal protection of the euro is to be credible, we must avoid having a multiplicity of instruments, and we should accordingly make a combined effort in March to approve a single instrument covering all necessary aspects, including those featuring in initiatives already presented by France and those whose adoption the Commission itself has called for."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples