Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-08-Speech-2-284"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030408.8.2-284"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the atmosphere is a lot more pleasant this evening. Parliament is as united now in rejecting the Council initiatives with regard to Europol as it was divided this afternoon in the debate on the UN Conventions on drugs.
In both debates, Parliament demonstrated the alternative ways in which it can exert influence in spheres in which it does not have legislative competence: this afternoon as a political and public forum in which debates sometimes become heated, and now as a guardian of the rights of our citizens. It is clear to us all that the present situation is unacceptable, as Europol is under neither democratic nor legal control. We are not joining in the game, therefore; we are not dutifully delivering our opinion.
I should particularly like to thank the two rapporteurs – Mr von Boetticher and Mr Turco – most sincerely for ensuring an approach and a solution according to which, on the one hand, we are able to openly voice our criticism – which we do by rejecting the Council proposals and, on the other, we are able to express our positive, constructive suggestions in a recommendation, such as our recommendation that Europol be made part of the first pillar. I think that this is a very constructive approach.
I am also pleased that we tightened up the wording yesterday by means of an amendment explicitly stating that Europol must bring access to documents into line with the European rules on transparency; for public access to information must also apply to Europol. That does not mean, of course, that there is not sometimes good reason to keep something confidential, to not put it in the public domain, but objective criteria must be applied, and those are worded excellently in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. That Regulation must be applied. I welcome Commissioner Vitorino’s confirmation, according to which Europol can simply apply that Regulation now, in anticipation of formal rules being drawn up.
Finally, I wish to try to win you over to the amendments that my group has re-tabled. If I succeed in this, I think that it is abundantly clear that this debate is radically different from this afternoon’s, because this afternoon everyone was, first and foremost, absolutely convinced of being in the right. I want it to be clear from the Europol database where the data come from. Do they originate from individual investigations, or were they obtained through national police or intelligence services? This is important, because in some countries certain data may and other data may not be used as evidence in criminal cases. If there is no clarity, there is a risk of evidence being termed illegal and thus inadmissible. My amendment to Recommendation No 5 argues in favour of clarity as regards the origin of evidence, due to the importance of this clarity for legal cases. I hope it will have your support."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples