Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-04-Speech-1-050"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020204.4.1-050"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I wish to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Oostlander, on the excellent report that he has tabled, and state that this framework decision submitted by the Commission is part of a global strategy to combat drugs based on a balanced approach of measures to reduce supply and demand and to act against illicit trafficking.
This proposal is not the entire European policy on drugs: this proposal deals with only one specific component, which is the fight against drug trafficking. But our approach to the issue of drugs in the European Union is part of the Action Plan for 2000-2004, which will be assessed at its halfway point, some time this year. In Laeken, the Heads of State and Government asked us to approve the framework decision on the harmonisation of penalties at European level for drug trafficking by the end of May of this year. That is the sole purpose of this proposal. The Commission is of the view that, in the fight against drug trafficking, there must be close cooperation between the various judicial, police and customs authorities of the Member States to deal with the challenge of transnational drug trafficking. If such cooperation is going to be effective, it must be underpinned by a common approach at Union level, specifically in the approximation of definitions of the charges and penalties that apply to trafficking, which must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
We welcome the objectives set out in Mr Oostlander’s report. Measures to clamp down on traffickers must clearly be supplemented and backed with a policy of prevention and the social rehabilitation of drug addicts. The instrument that is envisaged is only intended to cover the penal aspects of the drugs phenomenon. The Commission worked on this criminal law initiative, you might say, in full awareness of the facts, for we had carried out major preparatory work, in particular studying the definitions in each Member State, the penalties that can be applied under the law and – of no less importance – the specific ways in which penalties for drug trafficking are applied in each of the 15 Member States. This study, which was made public, consequently enabled us to make a comparative analysis of the legislation of all the Member States in the field of drug trafficking.
Hence the first important point to make is that our objective is to harmonise penalties for drug trafficking. This proposal should not be considered to be limited to transnational or cross-border trafficking because the two issues amount to the same thing: in most drugs cases, the trafficking starts outside Europe and is, therefore, always transnational. I therefore fail to see how we can envisage punishing cross-border trafficking more severely than the serious trafficking we are seeing within every Member State. The States cannot have two penal codes, one to be applied to drug trafficking that takes place exclusively within their borders and another for drug trafficking that has a cross-border dimension.
Let us move on to the second issue: the definition of drug trafficking. The Commission has already been criticised for lacking ambition where this matter is concerned. What have we done wrong? We have limited ourselves to taking up the key elements of the United Nations’ 1988 Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances, and we have combined this definition with national provisions on the definition of offences related to drug trafficking. We have, therefore, simply attempted to produce a synthesis of definitions of drug trafficking. However, here – and this is my third important observation – we have respected the principle of subsidiarity. This is why the individual consumption of drugs is not included in this definition and nor is the not-for-profit sale of drugs for personal consumption. These are left to the exclusive jurisdiction of each Member State, because, as this debate has demonstrated, in this field the solutions put forward by the fifteen Member States differ widely.
The Commission’s proposal will not, therefore, change these differences in national legislation in the areas in which drug trafficking for the purposes of personal consumption is considered not to incur punishment. But when the trafficking is of such a scale and seriousness that it has to incur penalties, the Commission proposes that these should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. The minimum penalty of a maximum sentence of five years is a sanction which provides not only considerable room for manoeuvre for judges to apply the law according to the circumstances of each case of trafficking, but it is also a proposal that seeks to convey an idea of the harshness with which we wish to punish the cases of drug trafficking to which this penalty applies.
I know that in some countries – and Mr Coelho mentioned the case of Portugal – the minimum penalty of the maximum sentence is heavier than this. I must say that in other countries, the penalty is lighter, and we feel that this sentence of five years represents a minimum standard for harmonisation, giving, of course, each Member State the option of establishing other, harsher standards in its legislation for the minimum maximum penalty than can be applied. However, this is an issue that is being discussed at Council level. I feel, therefore, that this proposal, which I hope Parliament will approve, is an initial step in a fight in which all Member States participate against drug trafficking, which threatens the health, the security and the quality of life of our citizens, and which, as Mr Oostlander has pointed out, is one of the sources of funding for countless other criminal activities, including terrorism itself. In this context, I hope that Parliament will support the report and will enable the Council to adopt this framework decision by the end of May this year."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples