Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-04-Speech-3-296"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010404.12.3-296"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the chairman and members of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs and the rapporteur, Mrs Keßler, for their support for the Commission proposals as well as for the information they have given on the strategy to reorganise the programmes, which was nevertheless clear from the explanatory statement of the proposals the Commission itself presented.
The Vienna action plan and the Tampere Summit were very precise as regards the domain we are dealing with. They called upon us to study the possibility of extending the principle of a judicial network to the civil domain and to establish an information system which citizens could access easily and which would be supported by a network of national authorities.
It is therefore in this context, which was sketched out by the Treaty on European Union, the Vienna action plan and the Tampere Summit, that the proposal for a decision we are debating today is enshrined.
Above all, we are seeking tangible benefits for all our citizens. We want them to be able to turn to the courts of any Member State just as easily as they can to those in their own country, so that individuals and companies alike can exercise their rights. And we want to achieve this by putting in place a bipartite mechanism, to both parts of which, I hasten to add, we attach the same importance.
The first part is about establishing a flexible, non-bureaucratic structure which will ease the flow of judicial cooperation between Member States. This is already the case in the criminal domain, from our experience with which we have learned a great deal. The second part, which is just as important, is about going beyond what is currently being done in the criminal domain and putting in place a system to provide all citizens with easily comprehensible and accessible information which will help them to overcome their reluctance to defend their rights in a Member State other than their own and will thus ease their access to justice in this Member State.
I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Keßler, as well as the draftspersons of the opinion of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, Mrs Wallis and Mrs Wenzel-Perillo, for the support they have given to our initiative.
As regards the proposals for amendments contained in the legislative proposal, first of all I can accept Amendments Nos 1, 2, 3, 5 and 9. I would like to point out however that, in connection with Amendment No 3, we do not see an obstacle to future instruments being able to provide specific cooperation mechanisms. Concerning Amendment No 9, on the other hand, it is fitting to allow a certain margin of flexibility in its operation.
As regards Amendment No 4, the Commission has its doubts. However, this does not mean that the Commission rejects the idea of developing databases in the field of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters. On the contrary, we would like to be able to develop such databases in this field provided, for example, they can be of significant assistance for monitoring the implementation of adopted or future instruments. We also believe the network may be very useful for this purpose. That is why, although we are unable to accept the amendment as it stands, in response to the wishes expressed by Parliament, I would like to clearly point out in the recitals that the network may collaborate in the development of specific, precisely targeted projects in this field, for which priorities will be duly established in the light of the immediate actions of the civil judicial network.
Another amendment that the Commission cannot accept as it stands but whose essence will be written into the text of the decision is Amendment No 7. The Commission would, in fact, like the network to be able to use the services offered by the IDA programme as far as possible.
The Commission is also able to accept part of Amendments Nos 10 and 11 and stresses that the prescribed 3-year period will start once the network is actually up and running. Nonetheless, I have to admit that the presentation of annual statistical reports seems to us to be an excessive burden on the network.
However, the Commission is unable to accept Amendment No 8 and has its doubts about Amendment No 6 concerning collaboration with the judicial network in criminal matters. We will do everything within our power to ensure that this collaboration is put into practice. Nonetheless, given the differing legal basis and pillar between civil judicial cooperation and criminal judicial cooperation, it does not seem appropriate to incorporate into the text what, in any case, will be done in practice.
The Commission’s intention is to pursue the action of the existing programmes for two years and to launch Hippocrates at the same time and for the same period. Essentially, the aim is not to interrupt sources of financing and to avoid any discontinuity in its action which would only serve to weaken the projects and the objectives that have been set. The de facto situation is that these programmes came to an end in 2000. It is imperative that they be renewed as quickly as possible.
To conclude, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, through this proposal we hope to put in place an effective instrument which will enable us to achieve our ultimate goal: to bring about a European area of freedom, security and justice in civil and commercial matters. This is something which affects not only the will and the everyday lives of our citizens but also the proper functioning of the single market.
As to the new Hippocrates programme for the prevention of criminality, which is one of the most important aspects of the fight against crime, it takes its name from the celebrated Greek physician, for whom prevention was better than cure, and is based on the experience gained by the Commission in other programmes under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union.
Bringing the legal base and the ways of managing the new Hippocrates programme into line with the other programmes will, I am sure, simplify the management and utilisation of financing programmes which are now running smoothly after five years of experience on the ground.
In Mrs Keßler’s draft report, the merger of the different programmes is clearly indicated within a timeframe which, in fact, coincides with that put forward by the Commission. This method will, moreover, enable the Commission to rationalise the management of the programmes and to integrate them into a general framework which corresponds to the area of freedom, security and justice called for by the Treaties, by the Vienna action plan and by the conclusions of the Tampere European Council.
The Commission’s objective is to integrate all the programmes into a coherent block. This may lead to the presentation of framework programmes under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union and Title IV of the Treaty establishing the European Community and of another in the context of asylum and immigration which, in my opinion, merits a different type of treatment to the other objectives. This strategy to merge the programmes will, I am sure, strengthen the effectiveness of management and transparency and will help to better inform the European Parliament about what will follow.
The Commission is therefore absolutely on the same wavelength as the European Parliament and I can only welcome this. But our main concern, naturally, is to prepare this coordination in the correct manner. That is why the Commission will pursue the debate which is already under way and will make the most of the time available to it to extract the essential elements. We will present our proposals for consolidating the programmes along the lines indicated in Mrs Keßler’s report by the end of 2001.
We are counting on constructive dialogue with, and the support of, the European Parliament to make this operation a success.
I would now like to turn to the Commission proposal for a Council decision establishing a European judicial network in civil and commercial matters. As you are aware, Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union states that the aim of the European Union is to maintain and develop an area of freedom, security and justice. The Vienna action plan and the conclusions of the Tampere Summit recognised that citizens could only enjoy freedom in an area of justice in which they could gain access to the courts and to the authorities of all Member States as easily as in their own countries. In an amendment you propose, quite rightly, spelling this out in the text of the decision we are debating today."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples