Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-10-21-Speech-1-071"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021021.6.1-071"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, the report deals with one of the most important problems that the European Constitutional Convention has to solve, namely how to integrate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the future European constitutional treaty and guarantee loophole-free protection of fundamental rights in the European Union.
Parliament has for a long time already been the motive force behind this issue in the EU. This report, addressed directly to the Convention, finds Parliament again doing justice to its political role. I would therefore like to say how very grateful I am to the rapporteur, and, for that very reason, address three issues that are also reflected in my amendments.
For many people, the primary and justified expectation is that the Convention will decide in favour of the incorporation of the Charter into the constitutional treaty, and so it must be ensured that it contains not merely guiding principles for the institutions of the European Union; these must give rise to binding rights, which are to be safeguarded by the European Union and, which, if need be, can form the basis of any citizen's appeal to the courts. The report – in its item 1, for example – is quite right to frame this as a demand.
I take the view, though, that Parliament is frustrating its own objectives when it is stated, under item 2 of the report, that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is to be incorporated into European constitutional law only in the form of a preamble. A preamble could perhaps serve as some sort of pretence of a future constitutional treaty, but, in legal terms, it is not a norm relevant in law. I believe that such a stance on Parliament's part would be understood by nobody at all.
Secondly, we are right to demand that the EU should accede to the ECHR. It is already becoming evident that a majority in the Convention favours this position. If Parliament wants to continue to be the motive power behind this, then, I believe, it must also call the associated problems by their proper names. I consider Recital Z to be inadequate in merely pointing out that the ECJ stands in the same relation to the ECHR as does any national constitutional court. To say that is to draw a veil over a problem, as the fifteen Member States take very different approaches to the issue of relations between the national constitutional courts and the Court of Justice in Strasbourg. In my judgment, the constitutional treaty must give its own answer to the question contained in the report.
I will make my third point to the rapporteur later on."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples