Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-27-Speech-4-047"

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	"it"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030327.2.4-047"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-03-27-Speech-4-0482
lpv:speaker	lp:Antonio Di Pietro2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Italia dei Valori - Lista Di Pietro (2000-06-14--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; ELDR (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 chair; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees and Delegation for relations with Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; CONT (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I too, like Mr Kirkhope who took the floor a few moments ago, used to be a public prosecutor, but I reached and have again reached diametrically opposed conclusions. I call on those who truly believe in European integration to be consistent and to support the plan for a stronger European Union, that is, which can avail itself of all the necessary means in order to exert real influence on the scourge of fraud prejudicial to the Union’s financial interests, since until now, these interests have not been adequately protected by the Member States with their laws. It is a fact that each year the amount of fraud prejudicial to Community budgets – that is, in the final analysis, prejudicial to European taxpayers – amounts to approximately EUR one billion, as rightly stated by the motion for a resolution tabled by Mrs Theato – who has all my admiration and respect – and all the studies agree in saying that this phenomenon is set to steadily increase. This is why the existing legal instruments to combat fraud such as the conventions and protocols ratified by the Member States, the cumbersome nature of actually putting into practice mutual assistance in criminal matters, the nature of OLAF which, under its mandate, has to restrict itself to mere administrative checks and, above all, the fragmentation of the European criminal law-enforcement area are totally insufficient to effectively fight this phenomenon, and the excuses which have been proffered until now do not convince me that we should abandon the European Public Prosecutor either. The mere decision in principle is, however, not sufficient: if we really are in favour of establishing a European Public Prosecutor, we must be consistent in also providing him with the effective means to operate. We must therefore define with the greatest precision, at Community level, the crimes and penalties stipulated for criminal acts and moreover, draw up common provisions in the field of European Union criminal law and criminal procedural law. Consequently, I also believe, as the rapporteur Mrs Theato says, that in observing the separation of powers, the European Public Prosecutor and the deputy European prosecutors must be independent and carry out their mandate on the basis of the principle of mandatory prosecution. Furthermore, it will be necessary to subject the European Public Prosecutor’s actions to judicial review, both with regard to investigations and to committals for trial. In conclusion, honest citizens of the Union can only welcome the creation of an instrument which fights dishonest people at all times and in all areas."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph