Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-12-12-Speech-3-032"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011212.2.3-032"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:translated text |
"On behalf of my colleague Antoine Duquesne, President-in-Office of the Justice and Home Affairs, I would like to bring you up-to-date with regard to the progress of the files I know are close to your hearts, namely asylum and immigration. I have already told you that the progress in this area does not meet our expectations. Nonetheless we must remain objective. We have achieved a breakthrough during the course of this year. Both the Swedish and the current Belgian Presidency have made efforts to achieve progress in these affairs, which are particularly sensitive. These efforts have not been fruitless. Various basic texts, such as the visa regulation and the Eurodac regulations, the directive on temporary protection and the European Refugee Fund have been approved in this manner. However, it is clear that if we want to adhere to the deadlines set in the Treaty as well as at the Tampere Summit, we will have to redouble our efforts and make it even clearer that subjects such as managing the immigration flows, asylum policy and family reunification will have to take on a European perspective. I think that we still have a very great deal to do in this area, but you can be sure that the Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs, just like you yourself, are as keen as you are to achieve this.
And now to the final set of problems I would like to discuss with you, which concern the need to keep the European Parliament informed about important changes occurring in the negotiation process within the Council, both in relation to legislative proposals by the Commission and in relation to initiatives developed by the Member States. As I have already said, it was the Council’s wish to fully involve the European Parliament in the legislative procedures at Community level in accordance with the provisions of the convention. It is true that the activities of the Council bodies will result in changes to the tenor of some provisions of the proposals or initiatives being submitted to them. This is in fact in keeping with the common wish to find solutions which have the support of everyone in the Union. In practice we know that if the European Parliament has not yet issued its advice on a proposal or an initiative, the Council has always been willing to provide the information requested so that the European Parliament can satisfy itself as to the direction the activities are taking. This having been said, the Council knows that the European Union’s standpoints have a specific value added which differs from those of the Member States. Since it aims in its advice to respond to a different institutional logic and give the Council the right elements within the framework of the democratic task with which it is charged, this task must obviously not depend on developments of the work done by the Council on one decision or another. What is more, the Council consults the European Parliament, if necessary, in accordance with the provisions of the convention.
Please allow me to conclude this part of my speech by expressing my satisfaction as President for the way in which we have been able to cooperate with the European Parliament. We sometimes had to seek advice about very profound matters in particularly difficult circumstances and at very short notice. I think that this is something that may even have been unique to this Presidency. We have never appealed to you in vain. The European Parliament has exercised flexibility when giving advice, sometimes at very short notice. This method of cooperation, coupled with our cooperation with the Commission and the Commissioner, has made it possible to take a major step towards, amongst other things, the European arrest warrant, which I believe is the most important common denominator, because this has enabled us to undertake an action in this area which is comparable to the introduction of the euro in the financial and monetary sphere. Thus the European arrest warrant has also come into being as far as cooperation in judicial matters and mutual recognition in criminal matters are concerned. This is only possible if all players demonstrate the good, positive attitude that we have encountered. I am therefore pleased that in these circumstances, the early annual report relating to judicial and home affairs matters has been given a different perspective than it has in the past.
Please also allow me to pause at another subject that has also been touched on briefly, namely the question of whether the fact that numerous arrangements and international agreements, particularly those relating to the prevention and combating of organised crime, have not been ratified by the Member States, is being taken into account in the acceptance of measures. The Council is aware of this matter. The Council forums regularly examine the ratification situation and try to make it clear to delegations that it is absolutely essential that the decisions be rapidly enforced. However, the Council realises that every Member State wants to achieve a ratification procedure that fits in with its own constitutional requirements. This matter is also on the agenda as part of the evaluation of the implementation of the Tampere conclusions. I am sure that the conclusions of the Laeken summit will demonstrate how important the Council considers this matter to be.
The Council has established that national procedures have been speeded up, and that almost all Member States have completed the ratification procedure for some instruments; for example, the agreement to protect the European Community’s financial interests as well as the two conventions on extradition of 1995 and 1996. We will continue to endeavour to ensure that these efforts bear fruit. I might add that the Council has been paying particular attention to this in the adoption of the action plan on the combating of terrorism. The action plan identifies various instruments including the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and the United Nations Convention on the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism. These conventions must be ratified within carefully defined deadlines.
Then of course we come to the questions concerning the democratic deficit within the European Union, about which the European Parliament does in fact have a number of issues to which it regularly returns. These include not the absolutely essential democratic control over activities that come under the third pillar, and in particular over Europol and Eurojust activities.
With regard to Europol, the Council first wishes to emphasise that since 1 May 1999, the date on which the Treaty of Amsterdam came into force, all legislative decisions to be adopted on the grounds of the Europol Convention have been presented to the European Parliament for advice. By doing so, the Council has tried to guarantee that the European Parliament would have control of Europol as far as legislative measures are concerned. With regard to the executive board’s activities, as well as Europol’s operational activities, the Council is currently studying ways and means of organising effective democratic control whilst at the same time meeting the organisation’s operational needs. Various scenarios are being examined. One of the problems that need to be dealt with is the involvement of national parliaments in the control procedures. The Presidency has made this a priority. The
conference which was held in November gave rise to a debate on stricter control of the sector. The Council wishes to point out that the concern expressed by the European Parliament is at the top of the agenda. However, the careful implementation of such mechanisms is a complicated process in which the balance in the Europol system must be carefully monitored.
According to the draft instrument, Eurojust, for its part, should only be assigned a cooperative and coordinating role. All decisions will be taken by the competent national authorities who will be handling the cases. However, it is possible for the European Parliament to be kept up-to-date with Eurojust’s activities provided that they are not of an operational nature.
The instrument establishing Eurojust therefore specifies that Parliament will receive an annual activity report which deals amongst other things with data protection. Parliament is also giving discharge for the implementation of Eurojust’s budget.
A democratic deficit has also been observed by the European Parliament. This deficit refers to the lack of the EP’s involvement in the definition of the strategy of the European Union in all its parts, both inside and outside the Union, except for the fact that Parliament is only kept fully informed and has access to the so-called sensitive information.
I must say at this juncture that the Council is applying the institutional convention provisions to the letter. In this context, when the matter relates to a proposal or initiative that falls under police or judicial cooperation in criminal matters, the Council applies the provisions of Article 39 of the Treaty establishing the European Union, and when the matter is one that is covered by Title IV concerning asylum and immigration or judicial cooperation in civil matters, it applies Article 67 of the Treaty establishing the European Union. Experience shows us that the Council has consulted the European Parliament whenever the Commission or one of the Member States has submitted a proposal or an initiative to it. The Council was in fact present during the plenary sessions and meetings of the appropriate committee of the European Parliament, and Parliament was given ongoing information about the state of affairs."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Integrated Security in Europe"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples