Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-12-Speech-1-089"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011112.7.1-089"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission considers these three initiatives to be particularly important, especially now, at a time when cooperation not only between Member States but also between the European Union and third countries and international organisations is crucial if we want to combat organised crime and, in particular, terrorism, effectively.
The initiatives we are discussing today are intended to speed up the timetable, to bring forward the time when the Member States will have a Community legal basis for establishing joint investigation teams which, if necessary, could include representatives of third countries or of international organisations, to extend Europol’s mandate to enable it to deal with a wider range of criminal activities, and also to enable Europol to transmit personal data to third countries and to other organisations effectively. This will undoubtedly be an important factor in ensuring that cooperation with these third countries and with these international organisations is reliable and functions effectively.
The Commission welcomes the fact that the European Parliament supports the draft framework decision on joint investigation teams that Belgium, Spain, France and the United Kingdom have proposed. We hope that the time saved by allowing Member States to put together such teams will enhance the effectiveness of the fight against transnational crime. The Commission also welcomes the fact that Parliament has given a positive response to the proposal to extend Europol’s mandate and to allow the transmission of personal data to third countries and other organisations. These two initiatives will help to make Europol an organisation which is more effective in the fight against organised crime, a matter which is of increasing concern to the public of the Member States of the European Union.
Mr Turco’s report raises the issue of the democratic control of Europol with regard to the initiatives in question. In June this year, I had the opportunity to discuss this issue at the interparliamentary conference organised by the Dutch government in The Hague, which was attended by representatives of practically all national parliaments of the Member States and which Mr Turco also attended. In light of the discussion that took place on that occasion with the representatives of the national parliaments, the Commission, as provided for in its working programme for this year, is now finalising its communication on the democratic control of Europol, in which it will put forward a number of ideas designed to improve this process. As you will be aware, this democratic control cannot and must not exclude the irreplaceable role of the national parliaments, specifically with regard to control of their national Europol antennas. Indeed, it must not only enable interparliamentary cooperation with national parliaments, but also provide the added value that comes from Parliament’s commitment to democratic control so as to ensure that, in this way, through close cooperation between the European Parliament and the national parliaments, we are able to develop an overall picture of how Europol is actually working without losing any elements of the detailed work produced by national parliaments on their own actions to exercise control over Europol.
At the same time, I acknowledge the importance of coordination between Europol and Eurojust and of the role Eurojust should play in relation to the judicial supervision of Europol. I do feel, however, that it would be preferable to wait for the Council’s decision, which will determine the final form Eurojust is to take, before we move ahead with solutions on coordination between police and courts at European level.
With regard to extending Europol's mandate, the Commission takes note of and shares the concerns expressed in the report about the decision-making structure under the Union's third pillar. This is indeed slow because priorities tend to change from one presidency to the next, and the role of Parliament itself is limited. We therefore welcome the fact that the European Parliament has emphasised the need for the situations of organised crime in each Member State to be reflected when priorities are established in the fight against organised crime at European level. Hence the importance of Member States providing Europol with sufficient, timely information so that it can produce an annual report on the situation of organised crime in the European Union of the required standard. With regard to the amendments proposed in Parliament’s report, the Commission might propose that the public version of this annual report be annexed to the report that Europol also submits annually to the European Parliament.
Lastly, with regard to the initiative on the transmission of personal data, the Commission broadly supports the amendments Parliament has proposed. It shares the opinion that the safeguards for data protection provided today under Article 7 of the 1999 Council Act on data transmitted to third countries and to international organisations, also apply to the transmission of data arising from this Swedish initiative. Since, in this case, the Swedish initiative only changes Article 5(5) of the aforementioned 1999 Council Act, Article 7, which is the article relevant to this matter, will still apply in full. Hence my doubts as to whether there is a genuine need for the proposed amendment to Article 7 of the Council Act."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples