Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-14-Speech-3-116"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030514.4.3-116"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I have listened with particular attention and have noted the views, comments and observations expressing specific and justified concerns on the part of the Members of the European Parliament. I shall try and reply to these concerns.
First, as regards the role of the European Parliament in relation to the procedure to conclude these two agreements. It will perhaps be superfluous, but I am obliged to remind you that the agreements being negotiated are based on Articles 24 and 38 of the Treaty on European Union, in which, unfortunately, no provision is made for some sort of role for the European Parliament. On the contrary, provision is made indirectly, not to say clearly, for referral to internal constitutional procedures. However, over and above that, we as the Presidency consider that, after the signing, a detailed progress report must indeed be given and we must listen to the views of the European Parliament. Despite the fact, in other words, that there is no legal basis under current provisions, as Presidency I repeat and emphasise that the Presidency will update the House and the House will also have the possibility of expressing its views on the two texts, because we too consider that, on such important issues, there must be continual contact and a two-way exchange of information with the European Parliament.
As far as the comments made on the International Criminal Court are concerned, I should like to repeat and stress that the draft extradition agreement makes express provision in an explanatory memorandum, as I said, for the obligation to extradite to the United States of America not to affect the obligation to hand over to the International Criminal Court. So I would say that it expressly safeguards the right of each Member State to honour its obligations towards the International Criminal Court.
Now, as regards simultaneous extradition requests in relation to the European Arrest Warrant. The draft extradition agreement leaves every Member State complete freedom to choose which country a person will be extradited to. I would remind you that, within the framework of the European Union, when we debated and agreed on the European Arrest Warrant, the idea of the arrest warrant from one Member State taking precedence over every request to extradite to any other third country was not accepted. However, even if we decide under our own internal procedures in the future to give such priority to the European Arrest Warrant, the draft agreement contains a special provision which makes it easier for us to take such a decision. Specifically, it acknowledges that the future development of the European Union may have repercussions on the application of the agreement and makes provision for the agreement to be reviewed in the light of these developments. However, I repeat that, under the draft extradition agreement, every Member State also has the facility to decide itself which country the person requested will be extradited to.
Now, as regards the relationship between the EU-USA agreements and the bilateral agreements which apply between the Member States and the United States of America, I shall repeat what I said in my first intervention that the EU-USA agreements do not repeal individual bilateral agreements between the Member States and the United States. The EU-USA agreements will bring added value. That is what we want. For there to be more assurances, over and above those that apply within the framework of the bilateral agreements signed to date by the individual Member States and the United States of America. What we want precisely, and this was also what we were trying to do throughout the negotiations, and this is what we are trying to do until the agreements and our negotiations with the United States are completed, is for there to be the necessary guarantees for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, which will respect the constitutional principles of the Member States. I think that it is an achievement that the references both to constitutional principles and to public security etc. which have been included in both draft agreements are now express references. And, of course, the Member States who so wish will be able in future to further strengthen the framework agreement in question with the United States by concluding bilateral agreements, if they wish, and going even further, provided of course that they are compatible and add even greater value in comparison with the EU-USA agreements being discussed.
As regards special courts, both the extradition agreement and the mutual judicial assistance agreement, in other words the drafts of the agreements, expressly stipulate that the Member States may continue to cite
their reasons for refusal already set out in the current bilateral agreements which they have concluded with the United States of America. In addition, the draft extradition agreement expressly recognises that constitutional principles may obstruct extradition, which is why the agreement makes provision for a specific consultation mechanism. Moreover, in the preamble to the drafts of both agreements being discussed, there is an express reference to the principle of a fair trial, including a hearing by an impartial, ordinary court, and to the question of special courts, which do not fit in with the judicial legal culture of Europe and are a matter that we raise at every meeting and in all talks with the United States delegation.
As regards the death penalty, and here I must also refer in connection with the death penalty to the draft on judicial assistance, because perhaps it is clearer than in the draft on extradition, and point out that, on the basis of Article 13 of the draft agreement on mutual judicial assistance, the Member States have the facility to refuse a request for assistance from the United States of America if they consider that the execution of the request might affect their sovereignty, security, public order or other fundamental interests. This wording which we have managed to get included, and this was an objective pursued on the European Union side, gives the Member States the facility to refuse assistance if they consider that the evidence, information etc. requested may lead to the imposition of the death penalty. Under Article 9, Paragraph 2, a Member State may also impose additional conditions on the United States of America with regard to the further use of evidence, for example, that it should not be used for prosecutions which lead to the imposition of the death penalty.
I shall continue with regard to the death penalty on the basis of the comments made by Mr Alavanos. The arrangement in the draft agreement with the United States of America has been put there precisely in order to bring more added value to existing bilateral agreements between Member States and the United States of America, which do not contain adequate guarantees. There are cases in which the current agreements have not to date contained adequate guarantees. And in every case, the provisions in the bilateral agreements, I must stress, are not affected. In other words, if some current bilateral agreement is more advanced, this
is not affected. On the contrary, on the basis of everything we have included in the draft, we go much further, by safeguarding and guaranteeing that the death penalty will not be imposed, will not be executed, than a series of bilateral agreements which have no such guarantees. The wording 'may be denied' does not mean that the Member States will ignore their constitutional principles, which will be expressly cited in their entirety. And, of course, I must remind you that all the Member States have signed and ratified the protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights banning the death penalty.
I should like to finish by thanking Parliament once again for giving us the opportunity to update and listen to you and to assure you once again that we shall listen to the views of the European Parliament with particular attention before the completion of all the procedures."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples