Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-13-Speech-1-060"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001113.5.1-060"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I must begin by informing the House that I am a lawyer by profession, although my membership of the Portuguese Bar Association has been suspended at my request. I shall therefore only speak from this specific view point, because I feel that the amendment to Article 3 in the Roure report that we are discussing entails, in the very way in which the compromise is worded, an unacceptable attack on the professional confidentiality of lawyers. Professional confidentiality is the basic premise, the correlative and the consequence of a relationship of trust that is established between lawyers and their clients. This applies regardless of whether or not there is a legal obligation, because confidentiality stems from the simple fact that the client is seeking advice from the lawyer or is simply treating them as a confidant. Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which has recently been adopted, stipulates that everyone has the right to be advised, defended and represented in the law and Article 48 states that respect for the right of the defence of anyone who has been charged shall be guaranteed.
Seen in this light, professional confidentiality is a lawyer’s inalienable duty. Where would we end up if, in this context, lawyers were not bound to maintain this confidentiality or if they were forced to become an informer rather than a legal counsel? Lawyers should not have to bear the responsibility for the inefficiency or the weakness of the authorities charged with investigating crimes of money laundering or any other type of crime. With regard to a compromise situation on this issue, there are two options: either the article in question refers to people who concentrate on certain activities and does not need to mention lawyers or any other professional category, or it refers to lawyers, creating a situation which in itself threatens professional confidentiality, however much the article specifies or defines the activities to which it refers. There is no reason to assume that, if a lawyer is acting as a financial adviser, he or she is not exercising his or her profession.
To conclude, Mr President, I shall limit myself to saying that the position of my country’s Bar Association on this issue is quite clear: professional confidentiality is the cornerstone and the fundamental duty of the lawyer. Any lawyer accused of carrying out or participating in criminal practices can be prosecuted, like any other citizen, but no lawyer can be forced to state or provide information on facts they have learned in the exercise of their professional activity. Lawyers are forbidden to do anything that is not strictly legal. The Bar Association has final and binding authority on issues of professional confidentiality and it falls to that body to decide whether or not to authorise – in exceptional cases – the disclosure of information at the request of the courts.
For all of these reasons, Mr President, I shall vote against the amendment to Article 3, even as a compromise wording for the legislative proposal."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples