Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-27-Speech-4-035"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-03-27"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Protection of the financial interests of the Community and the European Prosecutor2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030327.2.4-035"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-03-27-Speech-4-0362
lpv:speaker	lp:Christian Ulrik von Boetticher2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Latvia Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 member; Delegation for relations with Japan (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; PETI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mrs Theato. Many thanks, Diemut, above all for your readiness to compromise. I am glad that in the end a compromise was found between those who wanted to see a European Public Prosecutor close to the Commission and those who did not want a European Public Prosecutor at all. The Theato report now makes quite clear that such a Public Prosecutor will only exist in connection with Eurojust, only as a position at Eurojust. That makes sense because a European Public Prosecutor working separately would otherwise have to confront the same problems as national public prosecutors in cross-border prosecutions. We will shortly have 25 national legal codes, 25 codes of criminal procedure, 25 legal systems and 21 languages in this enlarged European Union. Such coordination would require an enormous new apparatus. Alternatively, we could avoid duplication by simply relying on Eurojust. That also means, however, that the actual charge must be brought before national courts by national public prosecutors. That therefore means that a European Public Prosecutor merely prepares a case. And it must also be made perfectly clear here that we are limiting the Public Prosecutor’s powers to the protection of the European Union’s financial interests. We must therefore say a clear no to a general European Public Prosecutor for all serious cross-border crime, such as the Presidium of the Convention is currently proposing, because there is nothing to be gained by it. In other areas, trials fail not out of lack of interest on the part of national public prosecutors, as is the case with the financial protection of the European Union, but mostly as a result of language barriers and legal problems. We cannot harmonise everything in this Union, however. We cannot, for example, harmonise criminal law, criminal procedure, the training of public prosecutors or the court system. In these areas we can only coordinate. That is why I would like to send a clear signal to the Convention again here: a Public Prosecutor to protect the financial interests of the European Union – Yes; a general European Public Prosecutor to fight crime – No."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph