Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-27-Speech-4-156"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030327.3.4-156"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I voted in favour of the report. The reason for my position is the tragic fact that fraud against the EU amounts to approximately EUR 1 billion every year. What is more, that amount is rising every year.
Legal proceedings are impeded by the fact that the national systems are so different from one another. Moreover, the Member States patently fail to take legal measures against fraud. Something must be done. Establishing a special prosecuting office for combating financial crime against the EU would therefore be a proper and necessary step to take.
I have voted against Paragraph 1 on ‘… common provisions in the field of criminal law and criminal procedural law in the European Union’. The same applies to Paragraph 4, to the effect that the European Parliament believes that ‘… in addition to the European area of freedom, a European judicial area be set up’. In both these cases, the demands are too far-reaching and infringe the Member States’ administration of justice.
Paragraph 21, clause 7 paves the way for the existing system’s ‘… being extended – if appropriate – to other crimes’. The wording would make it possible for a future European Prosecutor’s mandate to be extended to include new areas of responsibility, over and above financial crimes against the EU. Apart from the fact that this is, from the point of view of principle, a very dubious proposal, it needs to be analysed in depth before there is any presentation of it."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples