Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-27-Speech-4-041"

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.20030327.2.4-041"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-03-27-Speech-4-0422
lpv:speaker	lp:Heide Rühle2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Bündnis 90/die Grünen (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3 member; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3,3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-10-31--2004-07-19)3,3 vice-chair; G/EFA (2002-01-08--2004-07-19)3,3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of south-east Europe (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3,3 substitute; CONT (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3,3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, after the establishment of OLAF, the creation of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office would be the next logical step in fighting financial fraud in the EU in the interests of the European taxpayer. On behalf of my group I would like to sincerely thank the rapporteur, Mrs Theato, for the courage and persistence with which she has fought for this matter for years, and I also expressly include Commissioner Schreyer in my thanks for supporting the fight for a European Public Prosecutor’s Office in the Green Paper and countless hearings. Unfortunately, we still do not really have a Community policy for European home affairs and justice. The third pillar not only excludes Parliament from important areas of parliamentary codetermination and control, but is also the cause of many democratic deficits in European legal and justice policy. The establishment of OLAF as a European fraud office without judicial accompaniment creates a legal vacuum at European level. Once again, we have taken the second step before the first. Unfortunately, the Convention does not really seem to be seeing how acute the problem is either. What other explanation can there be for the fact that the Convention Presidium is again insisting on unanimity in the Council for a decision on establishing a European Public Prosecutor? The Council has shown in the past that it is not single minded in this and it has unfortunately also repeatedly shown that it is not always single minded in really working to prevent fraud and to protect the EU’s financial interests. Let us therefore show great unity and a broad majority in Parliament today. I believe we urgently need such a broad majority in order to demonstrate to the Convention Plenum in particular that we are against such unanimity and that we believe that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office must have a really important place in the new treaty, that the establishment of this Public Prosecutor’s Office must be decided by qualified majority and that here, too, Parliament must be given rights of codetermination. ( )"@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Applause"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph