Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-11-Speech-1-107"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050411.16.1-107"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, that we are, today, at last, debating this report on minimum standards for criminal procedural law that must apply across the European Union is something in which I take great pride. My group voted against the European Arrest Warrant back in 2001, one of the reasons being that no provision had been made for the rights of suspects who, thanks to this new regulation, could be handed over to other EU Member States so much more easily. We are now in a position to end the political battle that was waged then, because we are in any event united in our opinion that the procedural rights of suspects are a necessary addition to the European Arrest Warrant. Many Members have very closely examined this topic and I will have to thank Mr Costa for his proposals from afar. I should also like to thank all other fellow Members very much for the excellent cooperation.
For the rest, my work has been made easier because the Commission has done an excellent job. It put together many ideas, consulted certain people, and presented the results in a Green Paper, on which the previous chairman of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Mr Mollar, wrote a favourable report. I have taken his observations as a basis for my report.
Since criminals do not keep to national boundaries, tracing them must transcend these too. That is on the understanding, however, that the rule of law is observed across Europe. This report is not only about the rights of suspects, it is also about the effective combating of crime. After all, if Member States distrust each other, they will be disinclined to hand over their own subjects to each other without any hesitation. This is exemplified by the British and Dutch plane spotters who, as you will remember, were arrested in Greece some years ago. Despite the storm of protest this unleashed among Dutch and British politicians and citizens, the European Arrest Warrant was adopted by the same politicians in the same month of December, as a result of which, from then on, all the plane spotters had to be extradited to Greece. The question is, however, whether this will actually be done if there is so much protest against it. That is why I think that in order to combat crime effectively, real trust is needed between Member States, and trust requires clear agreements about the rights of suspects.
Needless to say, as the Commissioner has already stated, many rights are already regulated by the ECHR, but they are conceived as principles of justice and have to be fleshed out in the different Member States. The Commission proposal is much more specific. In addition, the rights will be more visible and easier to enforce. The fact that the ECHR’s workload will be reduced comes, then, as a welcome fringe benefit. This Commission proposal does, as the Commissioner has already stated, confer additional rights; a suspect is entitled to legal assistance during the entire criminal justice procedure, to an interpreter and to a translator. The authorities are required to inform suspects of their rights. I agree with the broad thrust of the Commission proposal, but it is evident that this is a first step and that additional framework decisions will be needed, for example on the admissibility of evidence, bail and on methods of investigation. I hope that the Commissioner will hurry things along in this respect.
I am also pleased that the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs has specified that a number of things in the Commission proposal must be formulated more precisely. Accordingly, it is stipulated that no one should be without a lawyer for longer than 24 hours, that no hearing should take place if a suspect has not received any legal assistance and that there is an independent body where clients can take their complaints about their lawyers. For the rest, it is important that not only governments, but also the lawyers and organisations involved, should be asked to assess compliance and for their assessments to be subsequently published, because only transparency will truly promote trust.
One last word about recital 8, because I know that that is a crucial paragraph to many Members. There appear to be a few Member States that are keen to retain the option of not applying these fundamental rights of suspects to citizens suspected of committing serious and complex forms of crime, in particular terrorism. This is an area of concern to me, in any case as a member of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance. As rapporteur, I should like to see a compromise being struck, but I personally take the view that Member States will be far less inclined to extradite people to other Member States if they fear that the minimum rights, the minimum standards, are not being respected. I should like to add that it is also a matter of principle that minimum standards apply to everyone by definition. When Mr Mollar, a leading Christian Democrat, was rapporteur on this subject, he never, under any circumstances, put the case for exceptions being made to the minimum standards. What is at issue at present is whether the report should be adopted at all if this exception is not broad enough. I hope that we will as yet meet halfway during tomorrow’s vote, because I am convinced that citizens’ rights deserve the support of this entire House."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples