Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-17-Speech-4-048"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-02-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Mutual assistance in criminal matters between the Member States2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000217.3.4-048"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-02-17-Speech-4-0492
lpv:speaker	lp:Johannes Blokland2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij - Gereformeerd Politiek Verbond - Reformatorisch Politieke Federatie (1999-07-20--2002-03-17)3 co-chair; EDD (1999-07-20--2001-01-29)3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; ECON (2000-02-02--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Slovak Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Slovenia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, this agreement deals with a sensitive issue: cooperation in the field of criminal law. It is therefore understandable that the Council finds it difficult to agree. Successful application of this agreement by the Member States requires unanimity within the Council. Only a broadly based agreement makes any sense in practice. This, however, does not mean that the Council can work on this anonymously. Quite the reverse, in fact. The Council’s proposal must comply with legislation of the national Member States in the field of criminal law. The wish to reach a unanimous decision can lead to compromises which do not stand this test. Careful parliamentary scrutiny by the European Parliament but, above all, by the national parliaments, is therefore of key importance. Mr Di Pietro’s proposal to omit the current Article 18 regarding intercepting telecommunications, amongst other things, is understandable, although very strict. The text of Article 18 is ambiguous: he is restricting the activities of the intelligence services but seems to allow interception activities by a Member State in another Member State without the latter’s prior authorisation. In this way, Member States would make themselves very vulnerable and it is doubtful as to whether there are sufficient guarantees to protect the State where interception occurs and the citizens within that State. Proposed additions, such as repeated references to the ECHR, the rights of the counsel for the defence and of the defendant and the failure of Member States to implement the ECHR, add too much unnecessary information to the text of the agreement. I am aware of the problems but I think that these could have been clarified by means of one single change in the text. The Dutch Members of the Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities will, however, despite hesitation, not withhold their support for the Di Pietro report in the final vote."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph