Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-12-12-Speech-3-031"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011212.2.3-031"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, nothing in this world is certain any more, and to illustrate this I would like to return to the presidency which Belgium had prepared. We had focused primarily on the interim evaluation of Tampere, of the decisions and recommendations made there, and on the four priorities which we had chosen for our presidency, namely the conversion from pro-Eurojust to Eurojust; the fight against trafficking in human beings, not only by standardising the laws but also operationally in the field; the fight against the disappearance of children; and last but not least, the freezing of assets.
At the same time I would like to draw your attention to the particular progress that we have made in legal matters in the extremely short time in which we have been in action. I think that a certain amount of quantitative and qualitative effort still lies before us, but I reiterate that everything we need to enable us to achieve this is in place, namely harmonisation of legislation, mutual recognition of court decisions and the creation of a number of European players. Concrete and decisive progress was made on all these levels in 2001. The framework resolutions on trafficking in human beings and the combating of terrorism in the area of harmonisation, the European arrest warrant in the area of mutual recognition, and Eurojust in respect of the players, are likewise elements which demonstrate the substantial progress we have made and which should enable us to achieve a truly European policy on criminal law.
However, who could have guessed at the beginning of our activities that there would be two incidents which would have a decisive impact on some other choices which the Presidency had to make? More specifically, I am referring to the problems in Gothenburg which obliged us, as Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs, to take measures to guarantee freedom of expression, and to secure the safety of citizens, states and also demonstrators.
Who would have thought that the events of 11 September would have had such a profound impact on our political attitudes, now that the framework decisions relating to the fight against terrorism and the European arrest warrant have seen the light of day and have experienced an accelerated genesis. All the same, I also offer my apologies on behalf of the Presidency for the fact that no one from the Presidency was present during your proceedings on Monday. However, I am sure you will understand that in the context of the European arrest warrant, which is a matter very close to our hearts and with which we are determined to make headway, we have taken every opportunity to continue our work in this area and, I may say, with some success, as we achieved the breakthrough yesterday, and the European arrest warrant has become a reality.
I would like to focus particularly on some of your questions, which in my opinion were very appropriate. Firstly, the possibility of achieving the aim of the European Union, namely to create a high degree of security for our citizens in an area of freedom, security and justice, whilst – and this has also been clearly expressed by the various speakers – our fundamental rights as set out in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights are fully respected. The Council recognises that it is immensely important to fully respect fundamental rights in all areas in which it is active, particularly in the area concerned with guaranteeing the security of our citizens. I would like to illustrate this issue on the basis of two topical examples which I know have been the subject of intense discussion in your Parliament. I am referring in particular to the framework decisions relating to the definition of terrorism and the introduction of the European arrest warrant.
In our response to the threat of terrorism, we need to be able to take effective measures quickly in order to demonstrate that Member States are capable of common action, whilst at the same time ensuring that decisions are made quickly, with top priority being given to our devotion to and constant vigilance in respect of the freedoms of our citizens. Our work has been done at top speed, but no one, and I would like to emphasise this, no one has ever been willing to sacrifice the quality of the texts in order to achieve rapid acceptance. By working enormously hard over the past three months we have succeeded in taking this justified endeavour into consideration, and in this regard I am particularly pleased with the input provided by the members of the Article 36 Committee. Furthermore, I understand the apprehension that some people initially expressed when they saw what we were doing in connection with the increased public concern about security after 11 September. I understand that this apprehension clearly played a role at times during the negotiations. I understand this fear and I admire the vigilance, but the outcome of our work and the compromises made by the Council of 6 and 7 December demonstrates that the Council never intended to sacrifice the rights in the European Charter, and I think that this is the only result that counts.
The framework decision on the combating of terrorism contains clear instructions for national legislators, which makes it impossible to interpret it in an unnecessarily repressive way. The obligation to honour these rights as set out in Article 6 of the Treaty has been added, as has the work we have done on the European arrest warrant. The preamble bears the traces of a well-considered advice by your Parliament which we took into account. Finally, these precautionary measures are rounded off by the political declaration of the Council included in the decision. It makes it clear that the decision does not relate to people whose actions are aimed at protecting or restoring democratic values, nor to those exercising their right to freedom of expression, even if they break the law when doing so. Our work is now complete, and last Thursday the Council reached a political agreement in respect of this framework decision.
There are similar guarantees for the European arrest warrant. In addition to the explicit references to fundamental freedoms in the preamble, Article 1 contains the connection with Article 6 of the Treaty which I have just explained in respect of the previous instrument. That the 15 Member States ultimately reached agreement on the European arrest warrant is therefore only to be expected. Besides the developments that have resulted in the explicit integration of the fundamental guarantees in the European Charter, I would like to add that it is advisable not to lose sight of the future role that the Court of Justice of the European Communities will have to play in the bringing together of the guarantees and the fundamental rights, especially on a procedural level. In view of its pre-judicial competence, and taking into account the traditionally sensitive relationship between criminal law and fundamental rights, it goes without saying that the Court is ideally placed to perform a particularly important role which consists of harmonising the guarantees offered to our citizens.
To return to the implementation of the action plan to combat terrorism, negotiations on an agreement with the USA in respect of Article 38 of the Treaty on the European Union concerning mutual legal assistance in criminal matters are on the agenda. At the moment we are still in a preparatory phase. This is a very important activity, and I am convinced that you will maintain your vigilance with regard to the protection of human rights in this area. As far as the points on extradition that could be stated in this agreement are concerned, I would like to draw attention to the European Union’s unchanging position regarding cooperation with countries in which the death penalty is still in force. Extradition cannot take place without the inviolable guarantee that the person will not receive the death sentence. The Council’s standpoint on the special military courts in the USA for crimes connected with terrorism is not yet known, but I can already tell you that certain delegations are of the opinion that this situation may entail considerable risks in the area of fundamental rights, particularly with regard to the right to fair treatment as set out in Articles 47 to 49 of the Charter.
I would also like to come back to another delicate point, namely the possibility of reaching an agreement on proposals for which negotiations have now reached deadlock, which is preventing the set deadlines on the scoreboard from being met and is preventing the creation of the area of security, freedom and justice. The Council is aware that some negotiations on the proposals currently on the table are being postponed, albeit, I may say, primarily for impartial reasons. I do not have the impression that negotiations have reached deadlock per se. Instead, the Council noted that there were several reasons for this delay and in fact it took the necessary steps to ensure that these discussions could be put back on track. The blockades without doubt form one of the points of the Laeken debate and I think that this will give the evaluation of Tampere a boost, especially that part in which we have not yet managed to achieve as much progress as we would have liked."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples