Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-04-11-Speech-1-108"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050411.16.1-108"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the proposal for a framework decision is a direct result of the Green Paper, submitted in 2003, on procedural safeguards for suspects in criminal cases across the EU. As the Commissioner stated a moment ago, with this proposal, the Commission intends to eliminate any potential discrepancies between procedural safeguards that apply to suspects in Member States. There is no doubt that this proposal has many benefits, some of which I would like to outline briefly.
As Mrs Buitenweg, the rapporteur, has already mentioned, there is no denying that this framework decision, thanks to the codification of minimum standards, can, and indeed will, make a useful contribution to the level of judicial protection within the European Union. Secondly, there is no denying that this framework decision can have a positive bearing on the mutual trust in each other’s criminal justice systems, something that is all the more important in the light of the enlarged European Union. Finally, the framework decision is less far-reaching, and therefore more realistic, than the Green Paper, and it is a good thing that the framework decision does, for once, give expression to the protective function of criminal law.
There are also question marks, though, around subsidiarity, about which there is indeed doubt. The EU Treaty contains no explicit legal base for criminal court procedures, although it does provide one for the harmonisation of criminal law itself. Moreover, this proposal contains basic standards that are already enshrined in the ECHR.
From this angle, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats is positive, but not naïve –hence both positive and critical – about this proposal. We have to say that this proposal, despite its obvious benefits, will lead to much additional bureaucracy. According to calculations done in my own country, the Netherlands, the Commission proposal will cost at least some EUR 40 million per annum to cover the cost of translation, the storage of visual material and the assessment of the new system. The Commission has voted to add many extra aspects, and so, for my small country, and also for other Member States, that amount will increase still further. Even so, I would say on behalf of my group that the benefits outweigh the extra costs, because suspects have to be protected effectively wherever they are. The Commission has made it very clear, though, that this far-reaching proposal should not affect national legislation of the different Member States that is designed to combat terrorism. That is why we could not accept Mrs Buitenweg’s amendment to delete this. She subsequently tabled a compromise, a first compromise, under Amendment 4: ‘Provided that they do not alter the essential substance of the provisions laid down in this Framework Decision and are in line with the ECHR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Member States may adapt those provisions...’. Even so, various Member States, including Spain, France, Great Britain, will get into difficulty with their current systems to combat terrorism.
That is why I am finishing off with the sound compromise I struck with the rapporteur under Amendment 51, in which reference is made to the rights of the ECHR, and I am happy with that. I would urge everyone here in this House to support that amendment, rather than Amendment 4, for the sake of wide support for the report, because I am not only considering the need for the report to be widely supported, but also the Socialists, the Socialist Governments in Spain and in Great Britain. Do not get your own Member States into trouble. If Amendment 51 survives the vote and Amendment 4 does not, then the majority in the PPE-DE Group will be supporting the Buitenweg report. If not, then we believe, unfortunately, that this report is being used to jeopardise the national fight against terrorism at the moment, in which case we will have to refrain from approving the report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples