Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-31-Speech-3-201"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010131.11.3-201"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission would like to congratulate Mr Ferri on the excellent report he has presented, which contains a very astute and clear-sighted analysis of the problems we face in the field of judicial cooperation and presents an ambitious and exacting vision of the efforts required to overcome these problems. The Commission broadly supports the analysis and the vision laid out by the rapporteur. We agree, in particular, with the approach that consists of stating that improving judicial cooperation – or even, to use Mr Ferri’s words, “a radically new joint effort” – must never be seen as a weakening of the sovereignty of the Member States. Instead, this should be seen as a tool, and perhaps the most important tool, for making this sovereignty effective in the face of the sophistication and power of organised crime, which today poses an extremely serious threat to the structures of democratic government, to the very functioning of the rules of the legitimate economy and to respect for citizens’ rights.
We are clearly on the way to achieving this, but it must be emphasised that this progress has been made not as a result of regulatory instruments – because many of these instruments are no longer in force: for example, the conventions have not been systematically ratified by the Member States – but mainly because, in the meantime, practical mechanisms have been created, such as, for example, the mechanism for mutual evaluation. This has given tangible proof of the need to find a new model and, in certain cases, has already led to Member States introducing the necessary amendments to their own legislation.
This process of professionals in the field exchanging information, whether it is carried out in the framework of mutual evaluation, in contacts within the judicial network or, quite soon, I hope, in the framework of cooperation within Eurojust, is crucial and must be pursued. Parliament is now being consulted on the renewal of the Grotius programme, which is an important tool for enhancing cooperation between legal professionals and similarly, on the project of creating a European network for judicial training, which will facilitate the development of closer cooperation links between magistrates’ colleges in the various Member States.
Of the suggestions and requests made by the rapporteur, I wish to highlight just three aspects: firstly, Mr Ferri referred to the need to amend Article 35 of the Treaty on European Union so that the Court of Justice of the European Communities is given the power to decide whether the Member States comply with their obligations. This loophole in judicial control is, in my opinion, linked to the nature of Title VI of the Treaty on European Union itself, which remains heavily impregnated with an intergovernmental spirit. I wish to emphasise that it would perhaps be more productive, at the appropriate time, to call for a more categorical and complete arrangement, either using the working method or the institutional framework method of the ‘third pillar’, according to the Community method, which would thus ensure greater control by the Court of Justice, as well as decision-making processes that involve greater participation by the European Parliament itself. I do, nevertheless, harbour some doubts as to the prospect of being able to adopt measures for punishing Member States that do not comply with their obligations.
One of the measures recommended by the draft resolution is the creation of a European Public Prosecutor's Office, with jurisdiction over the whole Union. As Parliament knows, at the last Intergovernmental Conference, the Commission proposed that the Treaty should provide for an independent European Public Prosecutor, but with the specific and sole aim of safeguarding the Community’s financial interests. This proposal was not accepted in Nice and the Commission will certainly take this decision by the Council into account, having already moved ahead with improving the arrangements and means necessary for OLAF to be able to fulfil its duties. By the same token, we hope that the creation of the Eurojust network will also be something that contributes to this aim, which was not achieved in Nice.
As to the issue of extradition, I wish to assure Mr Ferri that I share the concerns expressed in his report with regard to the simplification and acceleration of extradition procedures, which are, in fact, the theme of the third stage of mutual evaluation. This is why the Commission has included a specific initiative on the adoption of fast-track arrangements for extradition in its programme for 2001.
I wish to close, Mr President, by stating that I share the concern expressed by the rapporteur that, in this field, all legislative initiatives must be implemented with respect for individual rights and fundamental freedoms and that this respect for citizens’ rights and freedoms is inextricably linked to the fight against organised crime. At a time when the Union has proclaimed the Charter of Fundamental Rights, it is our duty to seek to act in such a way that the progress made in the field of judicial cooperation, the mutual recognition of judgments, the coordination of crime-fighting activities by the police and the courts and the simplification of extradition procedures accord with the principles that we advocate and that they are not achieved at the expense of the rights of individuals. The construction of an area of freedom, security and justice cannot by achieved by using the lowest common denominator where respect for citizens’ rights and freedoms is concerned."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples