Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-17-Speech-4-078"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010517.4.4-078"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I shall be extremely brief so as not to delay voting time. The Commission shares the overall view that Mrs Gebhardt presents regarding the Eurojust report and would like to congratulate her on the excellent job she has done. Above all, we stress the importance of finding suitable solutions for the relationship between Eurojust and the European Judicial Network, which has made a very important contribution to the development of judicial cooperation at European level, as well as defining the conditions under which the Commission itself and Europol can be associated with the work of Eurojust.
At this stage, the Eurojust unit has no powers to take operational decisions or to promote investigations as such or to take cases to court. Obviously, however, the natural course of evolution for Eurojust will be to arrive at this higher stage of judicial cooperation. Hence the importance of the ideas set out by Mrs Gebhardt, which the Commission recognises, regarding guarantees of a defence for the accused, the rules on data protection and global issues of safeguarding citizens’ fundamental rights. We all believe that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is an important guide in the adoption of these solutions.
We agree with the suggestions made by Mrs Gebhardt, but there is just one point upon which I should like to express a reservation. One has to be very careful when defining the competence of Eurojust with regard to crime affecting the protection of the financial interests of the Communities. We feel it would be preferable to speak of competence in matters of economic and financial crime. One of the most sensitive questions is the relationship between Eurojust and OLAF. OLAF has competencies within the first pillar; Eurojust falls within the specific intergovernmental context of the third pillar; therefore we feel it would be best to avoid giving the idea that Eurojust always has to be involved in cases where OLAF takes the initiative to safeguard the protection of the Community’s financial interests. Thus, we feel it is very important to specify their different scopes.
Finally, Madam President, with regard to the imaginative and creative figure of speech used by Mr Dell’Alba, who called Eurojust ‘Euro Saint Just’, I have to say that, for my part, I believe Eurojust is not an instrument of justice for saints: it is an instrument of justice for human beings. Aware of the difficulties, and even some risks, I say that, like any human endeavour, it is imperfect. It is not a holy office; on the contrary, it is a first step towards guaranteeing the protection of fundamental rights and fighting crime at European level. Not perfect, but an essential first step. That is why I hope the House will support Mrs Gebhardt’s report."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples