Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-10-13-Speech-3-102"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041013.6.3-102"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Thank you, Mr President. I would also like to thank you for the invitation to the presidency to exchange ideas with you about the multi-annual programme on Justice and Home Affairs. Not only have contacts already been established, but there is also a satisfying level of interest in the subject; for example, Mr Bourlanges and Mr Gargani attended the informal meeting of Justice and Home Affairs ministers on 30 September and 1 October, which was entirely devoted to the multi-annual programme. The presidency has, of course, read the report that Mr Bourlanges has, as rapporteur, drawn up on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. As I have already told the Council, this preparation offers the opportunity of distancing ourselves somewhat from current concerns and of considering the medium term.
The Presidency believes that the core questions are: ‘What should we in the European Union be capable of in five years’ time?’ or ‘What should the area of freedom, security and justice look like at that time in order to meet the then requirements of our citizens?’ The latter is crucial. The Area does indeed exist for the citizens and not the other way round. Thinking back to the discussions that have been held in the Council and to Mr Bourlanges’ report, it is evident that the Council and the European Parliament are, by and large, giving their attention to the same items. Accordingly, I can report to you that the proposals for political guidelines currently being submitted for discussion by the presidency deal with a considerable number of items mentioned in the resolution. It is indeed important that we can, in that way, give due consideration to this resolution when we reach the final stages.
I do not want to run ahead of this discussion. To date, only an informal meeting has taken place. I would, though, in this connection refer to such matters as the extension of the scope of the codecision procedure, civil rights, training police and judicial authorities, mutual recognition and, linked to this, common minimum standards, contingency plans, reinforcement of Europol and Eurojust and also the items concerning immigration, combating illegal immigration, asylum, repatriation and border control. Those items are also addressed within the meaning mentioned in the resolution. Needless to say, preventing and fighting terrorism is also an item on the agenda. At the same time, although – as I also said in the Council’s introduction – terrorism is at present an acute threat, cooperation in the framework of the area of freedom, security and justice cannot be based on that. It will instead need to be founded on the positive interests and added value that it brings with it.
With regard to the resolution, I should like to mention one more point, namely the proposed extension of jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The presidency has deliberately not adopted this item, the reason being that with the already increased workload as a result of enlargement, it would be irresponsible to burden the Court now immediately with the jurisdiction across the board of Justice and Home Affairs. As you all know, preliminary rulings at present take more than two years. By accepting the decisions in the field of asylum and possibly also in the field of criminal cases, preliminary rulings can be sought about the interpretation of Community directives in current policy matters. It is unacceptable that in those procedures, two-year timeframes should apply to legal proceedings where these involve people being detained for that time. The Constitutional Treaty allows for these eventualities by insisting, in Article III-369, on the prompt handling of cases involving detained persons or aliens in custody. It follows that the presidency is of the view that additional measures will be needed to enable the Court to implement this provision. This necessity has also been mentioned in the draft conclusions. It is therefore not a question of whether or not extending the Court’s jurisdiction is rejected but rather about making a different choice with regard to the priorities.
Incidentally, I have read with much interest what the resolution specifies about the decision-making by qualified majority in the fields in which this is already provided for in previous treaties. There are proposals that go in a direction that is certainly backed by the Netherlands and the Dutch Presidency, and I hope that it will be possible for the Justice and Home Affairs Council, and possibly the European Council at a later stage, to make an important step in that direction. The discussions about the draft conclusions will be held in the next few weeks. The intention is for the Council, composed of the Justice and Home Affairs ministers, to reach a political agreement on 26 October on the whole package, upon which it will be possible for the European Council to finalise matters on 5 November. Perhaps I might be permitted to end my introductory speech at this point."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples