Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-15-Speech-3-209"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000315.7.3-209"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, this question has already been broached here more than once. We have to recognise that the Austrian situation in particular, and the issues raised in this question concerning Italy and Belgium, are quite different from what is envisaged in Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty of Amsterdam. Article 6 of the Treaty of Amsterdam – and it is very important to make this point, as the Treaties are breaking fresh ground here – states that the Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law. Although we all know that the European Union is not a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, the same article compensates for this by stating that the European Union respects fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
As for Article 7, which is in fact a Portuguese proposal that I was able to present to the Reflection Group which prepared the previous Intergovernmental Conference, this article establishes a specific mechanism, and this is the point to which the honourable Member’s question refers, for taking action against any Member State which seriously and persistently breaches the principles mentioned in the previous article, Article 6. And this action may lead to the suspension of this Member State’s rights as a member of the European Union. This mechanism goes back to an idea originally put forward in the Spinelli report in 1984, and it is linked with the need to guard against breaches of democratic principles within a Member State, and in particular against actions that may infringe the principles of the rule of law.
I have to say that the facts that Mr Dupuis refers to in his question do not represent a violation of any of the principles mentioned in Article 6 of the Treaty. This article should not be invoked with a view to any type of interference in the administration of the home affairs of Member States, particular in the field of justice. The existence of a violation of a principle mentioned in Article 6 must – and this is also an important point and the reason why no mechanism has been brought into play – be determined by the Council acting on a proposal by one third of the Member States or by the Commission and after obtaining the assent of the European Parliament. As this procedure has not been invoked by any of the bodies with this right of initiative, this situation does not, in our view, constitute a matter covered by Article 7.
With regard to the Council statement made on 2 February, I would like to repeat, as I was the one who presented this declaration in this House, that it was made by the Council Presidency, but on behalf of 14 Member States, and of course the consequences of that statement and of its content as regards relations with Austria are only binding on each Member State on a bilateral basis. They do not bind the Council and they do not affect the free and normal functioning of the Community institutions, in which Austria is still participating in full."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples