Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-14-Speech-3-103"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030514.4.3-103"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, 18 months ago when I had the honour to serve as chairman of the Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, this House adopted a resolution on judicial cooperation between the Union and the USA. That resolution set out four key requirements for any extradition agreement: full respect for the European Convention on Human Rights; no extradition of persons likely to face military tribunals; no extradition if the accused risks facing the death penalty; and that any measures affecting data protection should be proportionate, effective and time-limited.
The terrorist outrages in Saudi Arabia on Monday night once again remind us that terrorism still poses a deadly serious threat. We need a robust and effective response. However, the Liberal Democrats in this House insist that anti-terrorism measures must always respect fundamental rights and be subject to proper democratic oversight and control. Striking the right balance is essential to success in fighting those who seek to undermine the fabric of democratic societies.
The current draft agreements between the EU and the US on extradition and legal cooperation must not escape the parliamentary scrutiny provided for in our Treaties. They concern 'fundamental choices' within the meaning of Article 21. They fall not only under Article 38 but also under Article 24, and it is scandalous that the Council does not consult this House in advance on all the Article 24 agreements.
In France, the
has refused the
the right to approve such agreements: so unless the Council consults us, what parliamentary scrutiny exists in the European Union?
These agreements on extradition and legal co-operation are very ambitious. The United States declines to sign the UN conventions on cybercrime, on crime prevention and on the International Criminal Court. In the Union, Member States have not yet ratified our decision on money laundering or the framework directive on terrorism. Yet these proposals cover the whole Palermo agenda. They should at the very least provide for the establishment of bodies to oversee their operation and provide feedback.
I can only regret that this agreement makes no reference to the International Criminal Court. I would urge the Council to rectify this. The Council must seek to reconcile the potential conflict between a request from the ICC to surrender a person to the court and the obligation stemming from this extradition agreement.
The slide away from democracy can start with the best of intentions. The European Union must guard against it. Do not let the Council's haste facilitate it."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples