Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-29-Speech-4-165"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011129.2.4-165"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
This is the second time a report on setting up Eurojust has been tabled for debate in plenary in the last six months. This time it has been scheduled on the same day as the debate on the European terrorism law and the European arrest warrant. Eurojust is an institution consisting of one representative from each Member State (public prosecutor, judge or police officer) and will have the widest, unaccountable powers to investigate and prosecute. It will basically have the power to order the authorities of any Member State to start an investigation or institute proceedings and even to take part itself in investigations by setting up joint investigation teams. The Member State will have to comply with its recommendations; if it does not, it must specifically justify its refusal.
During the previous debate, the argument cited for setting up Eurojust was to fight cross-border crime, that is, to combat crime where there might be a clash between the jurisdiction of at least two countries. Now it would appear that the rulers of the European Union feel that they do not need any excuses. Under the new text, this new superpower will be able to intervene even if the crime only affects one country. Of course, so-called terrorism is one of the crimes for which Eurojust will have jurisdiction.
Eurojust will be assisted in carrying out its virtuous remit by four different databases containing sensitive personal data: the criminal records kept by each Member State on their citizens, the Schengen Information System, the European judicial network and Europol's files. The long-winded list of personal data includes information on "racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, and data concerning health or sex life". All this means is that personal records are to be legalised through a quasi-judicial European body.
This is, without doubt, an overly centralised and arbitrary institution which does away with any sense of national sovereignty. It is also an insult to the famous operational independence of the judiciary of which bourgeois democracies are so proud. We must not delude ourselves that the objective of this whole legal arsenal is, primarily, to stamp out common crime. Together with the terrorist law, the European arrest warrant and the future European public prosecutor, this is an attempt to create a suppressive supranational mechanism which will be turned against democratic freedoms and, more importantly, against the grass-roots movement when it rises up against the dominant political and economic choices being made.
This is why the MEPs of the Communist Party of Greece voted against the report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples