Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-17-Speech-4-237"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010517.12.4-237"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, in order to avoid repetition, I should like to start by referring and subscribing fully to everything that Mr Posselt has said. I understand the importance of the objective of the report, but am unwilling to join in the general rejoicing because I see a whole series of inconsistencies. This applies, for example, to the somewhat blurred use of the terms recognition, which has already been implemented in Europe to a considerable degree, and execution of final decisions.
The discussion of certain definitions appears to be random rather than systematic, as far as I can see. I fail to understand why, when there are several decisions which violate the
principle because they deal with the same fact, the decision that is most favourable to the offender should be applied.
I also fail to comprehend why the call for the dual criminality rule to be waived is, unfortunately, gaining ground. A criminal justice system which – hopefully – feels bound by the principle of legality, that is, the
principle, cannot accept the consequences of deeds which are not punishable in its area of jurisdiction. Otherwise this principle would be broken and procedural convenience would take priority. And then it would be curtains for the rule of law!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"nullum crimen sine lege"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples