Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-04-08-Speech-1-096"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020408.7.1-096"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I wish to thank Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and Mr Di Lello Finuoli for their excellent work on two texts that cover the same subject: the proposal for a directive and a draft framework decision on the protection of the environment through criminal law. Both reports contribute significantly to an important European-Union-level debate.
The draft framework decision is therefore to be seen as a complementary text to the directive. All the amendments tabled seek to transform the draft framework decision into a complementary instrument to the Commission proposal for a directive. All the fundamental aspects of the issue are covered by the Commission proposal for a directive. The Council framework decision will deal with three relevant matters: liability of legal persons, jurisdictional competence and issues concerning extradition and prosecution.
We respect subsidiarity because the framework decision put forward by Denmark very closely follows the Council of Europe Convention concerning environmental crime. To date, nobody has accused the Council of Europe Convention of being against the principle of subsidiarity.
The reports by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten and Mr Di Lello Finuoli follow exactly this same line.
On behalf of the Commission, I therefore welcome the opinion on the draft framework decision by the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs.
As far as the specific amendments to the proposal for a directive are concerned, I am glad to inform you that the Commission can accept all the amendments suggested with the following exceptions: Amendments Nos 8 and 9, 10, 11 and 13, 19, 20 and 27, 21, 24, 25, 28 and 29. Overall, I am very grateful for Parliament's significant contribution to improving both texts on which the House is going to vote.
I would like to thank again the rapporteurs, as well as Mr Wuori, the draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, for their valuable input and support, especially as they all had to work within very tight time limits on a very complex matter. I hope that the reports will receive across-the-board support tomorrow from this House.
The extraordinary European Council meeting in Tampere in 1999 agreed in that common definitions, common incriminations and common sanctions should be established in a limited number of sectors of particular importance, and among those sectors it highlighted the environmental crime issue.
As the House will recall – and several Members referred to it – in 2000, Denmark presented an initiative for a framework decision on combating serious environmental crime. This framework decision is based on the rules of the Treaty on European Union and therefore belongs to the third pillar.
In 2001 the Commission adopted a proposal for a directive on the same subject, which is based on Article 175 of the European Community Treaty. Both proposals pursue the same objective. They seek to improve the implementation of Community environmental law and have the same starting point: we all recognise that there is a lack of effectiveness in the protection of the environment in our Member States.
Nevertheless, the Commission has taken a more ambitious approach by proposing a directive. The Commission has pursued this line for a number of reasons. The Community has, within given competence parameters, the power to regulate behaviours in order to achieve a Community objective. The Commission has never contested that, as regards concrete criminal sanctions, the Community cannot purport to act in the criminal area in isolation. However, to the extent that this is necessary for the achievement of Community objectives, the Commission is convinced that the Community can oblige Member States to provide for criminal sanctions where criminal law guarantees that Community law is enforced effectively.
The Commission believes that the sanctions currently established by Member States are not enough and that they do not guarantee full compliance with European Union law.
The Commission is not seeking an interinstitutional conflict. The key aim of our proposal is to create an additional guarantee of impartiality and to give authorities greater scope for cross-border investigations of environmental crimes.
Mr Blokland, this is the reason why it is necessary to have a framework decision together with the directive. We can provide for the provision of criminal sanctions in the directive, but the concrete scope of those criminal sanctions must be included in the framework decision. The framework decision has the leverage to allow the judicial authorities of the Member States to pursue cross-border investigations on environmental crimes.
Whether measures concerning criminal law should be based on the rules of the European Union Treaty or of the European Community Treaty, is not just an interesting legal question for European lawyers, it is of fundamental institutional importance, in particular as regards the role and powers of the European Parliament, the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice and the legal effects of European legislation in this area. I can fully subscribe to the arguments that have been put forward by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten. I would like to inform you that the Commission has never called into question the fact that matters of judicial cooperation belong to the third pillar."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples