Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-14-Speech-3-117"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010314.3.3-117"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Clearing up once and for all the very serious cases of fraud highlighted in 1999 is both a test of the credibility of the European Commission and a test of the efficiency of OLAF. The Commission will have to convince us and the people of Europe of its determination to see its statements followed up by action in the fight against corruption and fraud.
Our group supports the request of the Committee on Budgetary Control regarding its call for greater operational independence for OLAF and its director, towards the European Commission, in exercising its powers of investigation. By the same token, to be able to carry out its controlling function, the European Parliament must have access to OLAF reports without any special difficulty and whenever it wants. We vehemently reject, however, the federalist demand for the speedy appointment of a European prosecutor, as called for in the report by Mr Bösch, even though the most seasoned supporters of a federal system acknowledge, amongst themselves and on the quiet, that it would be wiser to wait for another ten years at least.
As regards Community fraud and judicial matters, it would be preferable and far more judicious to have recourse to Eurojust. This is a structure of intergovernmental cooperation within the Council and is made up of three officers from each of the fifteen Member States of the European Union: one judge, one representative from the Public Prosecutor’s Office (prosecutor) and one police superintendent. This option would be much more respectful of national wishes.
If we also take into account the very serious cases of fraud which were brought to light in 1999 and which still have to be cleared up, we cannot fail to be astonished by the double standards of a unilateral approach which only highlights certain matters (such as Fléchard I, which is being used in an attempt to destabilise certain top-ranking civil servants in France and to put the spotlight on Ireland and France by artificially dragging out the issue, or Fléchard II, in which German, Italian and Belgian companies are now involved)."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples