Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-13-Speech-1-067"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-11-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Provisional Judicial Cooperation Unit2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001113.6.1-067"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-11-13-Speech-1-0682
lpv:speaker	lp:Alima Boumediene-thiery2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; PETI (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries and the Gulf (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Temporary committee on the Echelon interception system (2000-07-06--2001-09-05)3 member; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Les Verts-Europe-Ecologie (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Development and Cooperation (1999-07-22--2001-01-17)3
lpv:translated text	"Ladies and gentlemen, although the need for a future European public prosecution service would not seem to pose a problem in the long run, that of harmonising our policies on the protection of citizens’ rights and establishing a criminal procedure would seem to be more than essential. Indeed, how can one possibly set up a European public prosecution service when there is not even a European civil code or, what is more, a European criminal code? Even if this circumstance presents no direct obstacle to the initiative on the creation of Eurojust, there is in fact one institution over which the European Parliament exercises no control and over which judicial control by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, pursuant to Article 35 of the Treaty, is not applied. How could one possibly consider setting up Eurojust when Europol is already operating as a free agent? Two things must be borne in mind: we cannot contemplate any tangible improvement in judicial cooperation between the Member States without this clearly being conditional on the protection of the rights of the defence in legal proceedings involving more than one State. This is the aim of our amendments. It follows that citizens’ rights must be reinforced by adopting an effective instrument and recognising the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, not least with regard to its right of interpretation and its power to decide on a case or not. Moreover, the flaws in the new efforts to combat organised crime can be attributed to the division of competences between Europol and Eurojust, and these have not been clearly addressed in any case or at any point. Well, as you know, the issue of competence and the limits on this competence are central to this Community harmonisation aimed at improving the justice system. The clear allocation of fields of intervention to either judicial cooperation or police cooperation is not only needed to prevent any conflict of responsibilities, but is also fundamental in terms of guaranteeing observance of the democratic rules that form the bedrock of the rule of law. The Member States of the European Community subscribe to these on the basis of their existing legislative, executive and legal systems, in accordance with the principle of fundamental rights and common values. Eurojust must therefore slot into the relationship between judicial cooperation and police cooperation. The European Parliament is the supranational Community body that can determine this relationship, and I therefore propose that you support its validity by showing support for our rapporteur."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph