Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-01-17-Speech-4-132"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020117.6.4-132"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, criminal law is closely related to the national identity of the Member States. National history and culture have given different tinges to criminal law systems. This is precisely the reason why we can see huge differences between the criminal law systems in the European Union.
The open European area and growing international crime have shown that cooperation in this field is necessary in order to ensure that the Union remains an area of security and justice. After all, the European Council of Tampere subscribed to the principle of mutual recognition within the European Union in criminal matters with good reason.
The present proposal forms a first step in the implementation of the principle of mutual recognition. I welcome the initiative by the United Kingdom, France and Sweden to make a start on mutual recognition in criminal matters in this reasonably straightforward area. The proposal is quite simply designed. Theoretically, the principle of dual criminality applies, that is to say in both the Issuing and Executing States. The lack of this is a reason for the Executing State not to implement the sanction. Precisely because of the proposal’s simplicity, it might actually be far more effective than the international treaties have been so far.
Many in this Parliament would prefer a proposal to harmonise criminal legislation. They believe that harmonisation at European level would lead to more confidence in the criminal legislation of other Member States and in the application thereof. I doubt whether that is true. Confidence cannot be enforced from above by harmonising legislation. It is precisely in those cases where diversity can continue to exist, and is even considered to provide added value, that mutual trust can grow. And practical experience is often the best way of achieving this trust, or not, as the case may be. This is why this mutual recognition is the ideal tool for cooperating in this sensitive area. And it is true that mutual cooperation in the field of criminal law will take time in other areas due to the need for mutual recognition. But if it takes its time, this also means that trust has apparently not reached the required level. Wanting to force this trust by imposing harmonisation may well have the opposite effect.
In the main, the amendments of the Cerdeira Monterero report are practical improvements. I particularly support the rapporteur’s proposal that use be made of the contact points of the European judicial network and no new contact points set up. After all, this would unnecessarily complicate European judicial cooperation. I do not support Amendment No 3, where the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is added as a frame of reference for decisions by the Union. The Charter has, rather, the status of a political declaration and not that of a judicial frame of reference. The ECHR on the other hand, that has been signed by all the EU’s Member States, present and future, is legally enforceable. The suggestion made to the effect that the texts are on the same footing is incorrect."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples