Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-17-Speech-4-071"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010517.4.4-071"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, faced with the continual increase in organised crime, the European Union has stepped up its initiatives to reinforce the fight against criminal organisations and improve cooperation between investigating and prosecuting authorities.
The Tampere Summit provided new perspectives for this cooperation between police and judiciary, long regarded as the poor relation of European unification. Eurojust, made up of public prosecutors, magistrates and police liaison officers, has become the object of everyone’s attention.
How, though, can we envisage effective operation of a unit which could become the future European public prosecutor’s office without prior harmonisation of Member States’ legislation and a basic rapprochement of their procedures? The purpose, for the Member States, is surely to achieve the highest possible standards, at the same time providing sufficient procedural guarantees and effective justice for all citizens, while respecting human rights, including the right to a defence.
Yet, we have to recognise that today we are dealing with a body which is not subject to any European Parliament control. More serious still is the lack of all jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, in accordance with Article 35 of the Treaty.
Another point to bear in mind concerns the processing of the data that the unit is responsible for. Eurojust will also have the task of collating information from police records, police reports and Member States’ registers. This gives rise to a few questions. What protection will be provided for this information? Who can access and use it? What right of reply and defence, indeed of correction of incorrect or out-of-date data is there?
That is the purpose of my amendments, on which our support for this report will depend. It is true, the European Union needs a supranational judicial structure to coordinate and enhance public action across the whole of European Union territory. The stakes are as high as they can be. That presupposes a willingness to implement a common crime policy which will go hand in hand with a minimum of national sovereignty being abandoned, whether the Member States want it or not.
Eurojust is about giving Europol a real judicial partner. Its whole effectiveness will depend on the complementarity of the added value that the unit will be capable of bringing to the other players in the judicial and police worlds. So, what use is it to establish supranational structures? Why ensure complex coordination between different countries to centralise an investigation if the judge in charge of the case does not have the resources to complete his investigation or secure conviction of the people charged?
To sum up, rather than having an endless epilogue on the possible powers of a real European party, surely it would be better to make a real decision on a structure which would distinguish itself by its rapidity, effectiveness, and availability to the citizens of Europe while giving them full guarantees."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples