Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-16-Speech-3-288"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-02-16"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Increasing penal sanctions against counterfeiting of the euro2
dcterms:Language	"da"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000216.17.3-288"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-02-16-Speech-3-2892
lpv:speaker	lp:Ole Krarup2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; PETI (1999-10-08--2001-09-09)3 substitute; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Malta Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; EDD (1999-07-20--2001-12-10)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Slovenia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Folkebevægelsen mod EU (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with South-east Europe (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"I should like to take over the baton from the previous speaker. There are a number of questions of principle which are demanding solutions, because the point of departure is, of course, that the regulation of criminal law is a national concern. Criminal law is part of each individual nation’s own cultural tradition, and it is very difficult to arrive at common definitions of what is to be understood by these basic legal concepts. I appreciate Mrs Cederschiöld’s work, and my point of departure will be her search – in connection with the Tampere Summit – for common definitions and common regulations regarding what is punishable and what common sanctions can be applied. She would like to devise these sanctions jointly so as to arrive at a coherent criminal justice system for offences which have particular relevance for the EU. But the problem is that there is no legal basis for this, and with good reason, because the regulation of criminal law belongs to the sphere of national jurisdiction. In that context, I want to ask the following question of the Commission’s and the Council’s representatives: is the legal basis which has been invoked adequate? In my view, it is clearly in conflict with, and far exceeds the scope of, Article 34, paragraph 2, point b where a legal basis is established for so-called framework decisions which are binding upon the Member States in regard to the desired objectives, but in which it is left to the national authorities to determine the form and methods of implementation. What of course characterises the present draft framework decision is the fact that the Member States’ obligations are laid down in detail. There is no freedom of choice regarding methods and implementation. In my view, this exceeds the parameters of the legal basis. I should like an answer from the Commission and the Council, for I consider it obvious that Article 31 does not supply the relevant legal basis."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph