Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-01-17-Speech-4-130"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020117.6.4-130"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, I would firstly like to express my satisfaction – as you have just done – with the initiative of the United Kingdom, France and Sweden, which we are considering today.
I also support the scope for the Executing State to reduce the financial penalty as laid down in Article 5. However, I have considered it coherent to insert a threshold which, as in the agreement implementing the Schengen Convention, should be EUR 40, and I would like to emphasise that conversion of the amount of the penalties would be the exception as the currency in the Issuing and the Executing State would normally be the euro. I would like to stress that I personally consider EUR 40 to be a small and insufficient amount, but I have proposed this amount for the sake of coherence with the agreement implementing Schengen, which set that amount.
I would like to insist on both issues, and ask the Council – which is not present today by the way – to take account of the sensitivity and proposals of this House and, in particular, of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, and I therefore believe that the initiative must include the following in the framework decision:
A European legal area must be based on the principle of mutual recognition. Therefore, the mere harmonisation of legal instruments is not sufficient.
The European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights sums up, for the first time in the Union’s history, in a single text, all of the civil, political, economic and social rights of the European citizens, and those of all the people who live in the Union’s territory. From now on, all of the Union’s legal instruments must be measured in relation to it.
Thirdly, the documents to be transmitted must be translated into all official languages of the Executing State. If the person liable to pay the fine or even go to prison knows only one of the official languages of the executing country he would not be able to read these documents affecting him, which would be an infringement of his rights.
Finally, it is necessary that, in those cases in which the competent authority of the Executing State is not known, the contact points of the European judicial network should be used rather than designating additional central contact points.
Therefore, the majority of the amendments have been tabled with the sole objective of improving the original proposal and contributing to compliance with the Tampere mandate, as well as adding one more element to the construction of a genuine area of justice, freedom and security.
The European Union and the existence of a European area of freedom, security and justice involve, in turn, the creation of an area without internal borders in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital must be guaranteed within the territory of the States of the Union, as laid down in Article 14 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. There can be no obstacles to the application of the law in the European Union.
The Tampere Summit called for the principle of mutual recognition to become the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in both civil and criminal matters in the European Union. Trust between Member States in terms of their judicial decisions and their correct application is the least we must demand.
Similarly, the Member States must make a greater effort in order to achieve a minimum degree of harmonisation of national criminal legislations. Until now, the application of financial penalties was regulated by means of two European agreements: the Hague Convention of 1970 and the Convention on the implementation of foreign criminal sentences of 1991. I would like to stress that the former, despite having entered into force, had only been ratified by five Member States; and the latter, the 1991 Convention, has not even entered into force. This is undoubtedly a clear demonstration of the need for initiatives of this type with a view to accelerating and making a genuine contributing to the construction of the European area of justice which we agreed on in Tampere.
While various legal acts already exist in the civil field, in the criminal field – which is much more sensitive – there has been much more hesitation. To date, only decisions on arrests and the guaranteeing of evidence are based on the principle of mutual recognition. We still have a long road to travel and greater political will is required on the part of the Council in order to be able to fulfil the mandate of the Tampere Summit through the work prepared by the Commission, which often comes up against obstacles and little cooperation from the Council.
This initiative represents a significant advance in terms of eliminating these obstacles. Mutual recognition is undoubtedly a key element for the construction of an area of freedom, security and justice. Similarly, I welcome the legal instrument chosen: the framework decision, which will no doubt prevent the complexity and long duration of ratification procedures.
I would also like to highlight the fact that, as in the conventions I have mentioned, it is based on the principle of dual criminality, and its absence is, therefore, one of the grounds for non-enforcement. The initiative proposes that a certificate by the competent authority should guarantee the legality of the judgement and hence replace examination of the substance of the case.
The difficult problem of how to divide up the proceeds between the two States concerned is resolved in Article 10 by allotting compensation payments and orders to pay court costs to the Issuing State and all other monies to the Executing State. I therefore welcome the initiative and largely concur with it.
I consider that a legal area as called for in Tampere requires the unbureaucratic transmission and enforcement of judgements in criminal cases and that this initiative is a first step towards a comprehensive application of the principle of mutual recognition. I particularly endorse the provisions relating to the law to be applied, alternative custodial penalties and the amnesty, pardon or commutation of financial penalties."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples