Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-11-Speech-1-082"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050411.15.1-082"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, allow me firstly to thank you for the opportunity given to the Council to take stock of the progress made in 2004 in developing the area of freedom, security and justice. I should like, in particular, to thank Mr Cavada, Mr Alvaro, Mrs Buitenweg, Mr Reul and Mrs Roure for the questions that have been put and which have bearing on the future and operation of this area of freedom, security and justice on which - as you emphasised – considerable progress was made in 2004.
The Council has also given special attention to the immigration aspects by defining measures in the areas relating to admission. These have included, in particular, the successful integration of immigrants, which is an important aspect of the management of legal immigration, and the tackling of illegal immigration. Regarding admission, I should like in particular to emphasise that the Council has adopted the directive relating to residence permits issued to third-country nationals who are victims of human trafficking.
Moreover, the Council has created the European Border Management Agency. This agency will be operational as from 1 May 2005. The Luxembourg Presidency is making efforts to find a definitive headquarters for it, but I have to tell you that, with five candidates in contention, it cannot be assumed that there will be unanimous support for a solution, especially if none of the five countries gives up its candidacy, as none has done so far.
Where expulsion is concerned, several measures, of which you are aware, have been adopted, such as the joint organisation of shared flights for expelling third-country nationals. Two readmission agreements with Hong Kong and Macao have now entered into force. Those with Albania and Sri Lanka have been finalised. As the Presidency of the Council sees matters, these negotiations will have to be speeded up with a view to arriving at a broad network of European readmission agreements.
Where visa policy is concerned, the Council has decided to add to the European Union’s budget the appropriations necessary for developing the VIS, the system whereby the Member States will be able to exchange data concerning visas and which will enable the national authorities to capture and update data relating to visas, as well as to consult such data electronically.
We have also adopted a regulation concerning the standards governing security elements and biometric elements that are part and parcel of passports and travel documents issued by the Member States. By doing this, we have created a basis for harmonisation whereby passports and travel documents must contain digitalised photographs of their holders’ faces, as well as recorded fingerprints. In accordance with this decision, the Member States will have until August 2006 to introduce biometric elements into passports. As we know, this deadline falls later than that established by our American partners for enabling people to enter their country without visas. I call upon all the EU institutions to convey a message of understanding to the US Government and, above all, Congress so that a situation that we should regret on both sides of the Atlantic does not occur in October 2005. The Presidency of the Council is working on this every day, as is the Commission.
In the area of police cooperation, you know that, since the appalling attacks on New York and Madrid, the fight against international terrorism has become a priority. The European Union has resolved to act jointly in order to combat terrorism and assure its people of the best possible protection. The European Union’s strategy is global in character and provides for a whole series of measures. Mr Gijs de Vries was appointed as coordinator of the fight against terrorism in March of last year. His main tasks consist firstly of coordinating the Council’s work on combating terrorism, secondly of ensuring that an overall view is obtained of all the tools available to the EU and, thirdly, of carefully following the implementation of the action plan to combat terrorism.
This coordinating function within the Council – I emphasise this in response to the question put – is important if the various structures within the Council are to have a coherent approach in an area affecting development, the police, justice, defence, external policy and other areas.
Moreover, I should like to remind you that the Council takes steps to evaluate the implementation of the action plan every six months. This review took place in December 2004, and another will be carried out in June of this year. As President-in-Office of the Council, I attach particular importance to continuing to make these joint efforts to combat terrorism and to ensure – and this is important – that the decisions taken are duly implemented by the Member States.
The European Parliament also asked whether the Council would envisage converting the shared values and professional standards of the police into legislative measures. For the moment, there is no Council decision along these lines, and it has to be asked what now would basically change if this were the direction taken.
Regarding the integration of Europol into European Union law, I should like to remind you that the Hague programme specifies that the Council must adopt European legislation on Europol as soon as possible after the Constitutional Treaty has come into force and no later than in January 2008, taking account of all the tasks entrusted to Europol. In the meantime, Europol will continue with its efforts to improve its operations by making full use of the cooperation agreement concluded with Eurojust. Europol and Eurojust should, moreover, submit a report to the Council each year on their shared experiences and the precise results obtained. What is more, Europol and Eurojust should encourage recourse to the Member States’ joint investigation teams and facilitate their own participation in these.
2004 was the year of the Constitutional Treaty, with significant progress made in building a more secure and therefore freer Europe. It was the year in which the Hague programme – a practical list of measures to be implemented - was adopted in relation to the area of freedom, security and justice. It was also the year in which more than one hundred documents were adopted in connection with the area of freedom. What progress for one of the greatest projects for deepening Europe following its enlargement, which also took place in 2004!
The Council has also adopted complementary measures aimed at enabling the European Police College to develop progressively. In particular, we have conferred legal personality upon it and established its headquarters. Moreover, the Council has adopted several measures aimed at reinforcing police cooperation in certain specific areas. The Council has adopted the decision on combating vehicle crime. The number of vehicles stolen each year in the Member States of the European Union is currently estimated at 1.2 million. That is a huge cost, amounting to at least EUR 15 billion per year. This decision introduces better cooperation, designed to prevent this type of cross-border crime.
The Council has taken several decisions aimed at combating violence connected in particular with football, the public disorder it entails and its consequences for those who respect the laws. In this context, we have taken several cooperation measures enabling us to put security measures in place, for example for the European Football Championship which took place in Portugal last year.
Where tackling drugs is concerned, the Council signalled its agreement in December 2004 to an anti-drugs strategy for the period 2005 to 2012.
When it comes to judicial cooperation in criminal matters, and taking account, on this issue too, of the question put just now by Mr Cavada concerning the quality of justice, I would inform you that the Council has noted with interest the recommendation of the European Parliament concerning the quality of criminal justice and the harmonisation of criminal legislation in the Member States. I would take the liberty of reminding you in this connection that the Tampere European Council has already defined the initial parameters for action in this field, and the 2004 Hague programme defines the actions it would be appropriate to implement in the future. A deciding factor in this context is mutual confidence in the Member States’ legal and judicial systems. Mutual confidence cannot be brought about by decree. It demands a set of measures, including a minimum number of common rules, the exchange of information and a more European-style training of police officers and magistrates.
In 2004, the Council continued to implement the mutual recognition of judgments programme, which has to be anchored in the mutual confidence of which I have just spoken. In the area of mutual recognition, we have arrived at an agreement in principle on the draft framework decision relating to the mutual recognition of fines, as well as on the draft framework decision relating to the mutual recognition of confiscation orders.
The Council has also examined the proposal aimed at devising a system for exchanging information extracted from police records with a view to promoting a better knowledge of convictions. I do hope that, in the course of this week’s Council and of the Councils to follow, we shall be able to make progress on this matter, which is important to the lives of people in our Member States.
We have also made progress in relation to substantive criminal law, particularly by adopting the framework decisions in the field of drug trafficking and several reports on the implementation of framework decisions on the subjects, especially, of combating money laundering and terrorism. In the Council, we have begun examining the proposal for a framework decision in relation to a number of procedural rights accorded within the framework of criminal procedures in the European Union, essential factors for creating the confidence of which I spoke just now. I shall shortly listen with interest to the report on this subject which is to be presented in this Chamber.
Regarding the retention of telecommunications data, which is the subject of the questions also put this evening, I would emphasise that the Council attaches great importance to this document in the fight against crime. It is not a question of telephone tapping but of storing data, for example telephone numbers, for a certain period. Yes, we are convinced that this document is useful, given the experience we have acquired as ministers for justice or home affairs. As a lawyer, I am well aware that the legal basis is important. Please, though! Let us not, either in the Council or in discussions between our institutions, waste too much time on the legal basis if, as I hope we do, we share the objective of fighting crime effectively while ensuring respect for the protection of private life – a concern of the Council too - and while bearing in mind the financial costs of these new measures.
We shall take a positive attitude to examining the proposals forwarded by the Commission to the Council just a few days ago, especially the opinion of the Legal Service in this regard. If I understand correctly, the Commission will submit a new proposal in the course of the next few weeks. It will be examined in the light of the Legal Service’s opinion. I would emphasise again, however, that, for the Council, the main thing is the content. Obviously, it will be possible to discuss all the other aspects mentioned this evening in the Chamber.
The Council has also made effective progress in the area of judicial cooperation in civil matters which, moreover, constitutes an important dimension of Europeans’ lives. We perhaps speak too often, in the area of security and justice, of the criminal dimension. The Council has laid down rules when it comes to the mutual recognition of decisions relating to family law, commercial law or other areas of civil law. We have, for example, adopted the regulation concerning the order for uncontested claims. We have adopted a directive relating to the compensation of victims in cross-border situations. We have carried on with the work concerning the proposal for a regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations, namely Rome II. It is, moreover, a proposal of particular importance since it is aimed at defining the law applicable, for example, in situations of liability due to defective products.
Yes, 2004 was the year of the Constitutional Treaty, which opens up new horizons for people and for the European Parliament, as shown by the questions put by Mr Cavada.
We have begun examining the proposal for a regulation to introduce a European payment order procedure. I hope that we shall soon be able to make progress, both in the European Parliament and in the Council, on the issues relating to the legal basis. What is more, we shall, while awaiting Parliament’s opinion, hold an orientation debate in this connection within the JHA Council in order to make progress with you on this important document. We have also begun examining the proposal for a directive on certain aspects of mediation so that it will be possible for the decisions taken in accordance with the directive to be recognised and implemented in all the Member States.
The list is long, and I could go on; but you are aware of a lot of these documents. You can see that, in 2004, huge progress was made in constructing a more secure, more just and therefore freer Europe. My only regret is that there is still such a lot to be done and that progress is sometimes slow, given the need for unanimity in the Council and different legal traditions. In this European judicial area, the Council and the European Parliament share the same ambitions, I think. The Constitutional Treaty opens up new prospects for us. I am able to tell you, on behalf of the Council, that I am committed to constructive cooperation with Parliament and to working tirelessly to ensure that our people can live in security and freedom.
By reinforcing judicial and police cooperation, by extending codecision and qualified majority voting – an absolute necessity in a democratic Europe of 25 Member States – and by laying the foundations of a genuinely common asylum and immigration policy, Europe will contribute genuine added value to our citizens where security, justice and freedom are concerned. Faced with the challenges of immigration, organised crime and international terrorism, no Member State is in a position to face up to things alone. We need more in the way of Europe. A vote in favour of the European Constitution will be a vote in favour of a more secure and therefore freer Europe. A vote against the European Constitution will mean our maintaining the national barriers faced by our police and magistrates while criminals take advantage of the absence of borders. That is a state of affairs that we must not accept.
Mr Cavada is right to emphasise the way in which the Constitutional Treaty opens up many new prospects of cooperation and codecision involving our institutions. If I understand correctly, a lot of the questions put are designed to anticipate applying the provisions of the Constitutional Treaty.
In a community governed by law, such as the European Union, the Council will carry out its work while respecting the rules laid down by the sole Treaties currently in force. The Council will not anticipate the Constitutional Treaty out of respect for the important decisions to be taken over the next few months by our national parliaments and our people.
Obviously, this does not prevent close cooperation, and an excellent understanding, between Parliament and the Council. Nor, where the Treaties permit, does it prevent our two institutions listening to each other or doing more to exchange information. As early as 2004, the Council’s activities in the field of justice and home affairs were characterised by great progress, thanks, in particular, to the excellent work of the Dutch and Irish Presidencies. As proof of this, I cite the fact that the Council adopted an important bill in the institutional field – and one to which you referred – insofar as it made the codecision procedure applicable in fields concerned with external border controls and the fight against illegal immigration. It is a first step and an important one. I also cite as proof the continued efforts to bring about an area of freedom, security and justice extended to include 25 Member States. The Council has, in particular, adopted nine regulations, seven directives and more than thirty decisions or framework decisions. That is a lot!
Finally, the European Council has adopted the excellent and particularly pragmatic Hague programme with a view to strengthening the three pillars constituted by freedom, security and justice. The Council has invited the Commission to present an action plan in 2005 that will give practical expression to the objectives and priorities of the Hague programme, objectives that you are rightly demanding be pursued. We shall discuss the matter again this week at the Justice and Home Affairs Council, as well as at the June Council.
In the field of asylum, the Council has adopted a directive concerning the minimum standards relating to the conditions that third-country nationals or stateless persons have to fulfil in order to claim the status of refugees or of persons needing international protection. In order to ensure greater solidarity between the Member States, we have established a European Fund for Refugees, which will make it possible to support the efforts made by the Member States in this field. Other measures need still to be adopted in this area, notably the proposal for a directive concerning the procedure for granting and withdrawing refugee status."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples