Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-11-30-Speech-3-200"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051130.18.3-200"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to thank Mrs Roure and Mrs Buitenweg for having raised this question, which is of key importance in Europe in terms of its space of legal competence in the field of criminal law.
I agree with the approach of both speeches and can promise that the Commission will make sure that this important decision by the European Court of Justice is applied in full, putting into practice its core principle, namely that when it is necessary to guarantee the effectiveness of Community regulations, criminal sanctions can be introduced by the Community legislator via the codecision procedure, and by that means only.
This opens up a very broad and significant area, both for the full involvement of Parliament, and as a way of moving beyond the intergovernmental approach, which up to now has prevailed.
Clearly, when drafting the proposals for the introduction of criminal sanctions, the Commission will have to hold to two main principles.
The first is the need for criminal legislation, because criminal sanctions can only be imposed when necessary. This is a universal principle of law.
The second is the consistency of the various provisions: once again, contradictions within criminal provisions must be avoided otherwise there could in theory be grave legal uncertainty, precisely because of a lack of consistency.
We have identified certain areas in which the decision of the Court may be applied in practice. As you are no doubt aware, we have decided to appeal to the Court of Justice in relation to the framework decision on marine pollution. We did this a few days ago because the time limit for an appeal had not yet expired and we considered it opportune to give an immediate demonstration by contesting the framework decision on marine pollution before the Court. We consider this to be one of the subjects on which a directive containing criminal sanctions should have been adopted, rather than a framework decision.
We have also proposed a means of extending this
to other fields. When, for example, a framework decision has already been handed down, one could, without altering the substance of the text, use an agreement between Parliament, the Council and the Commission to adopt the correct legal basis whilst avoiding having to open a discussion on the substance as well. This type of solution would speed matters up greatly.
A final response on the two subjects of racism and non-discrimination. Obviously I am in favour of adopting legislation which criminally penalises at least incitement to racial hatred, and hence to committing acts of racism. In this area criminal sanctions are undoubtedly necessary, even if, as I am sure you know, agreement has unfortunately not even yet been reached on the framework decision. I promised that in early 2006 I would propose a new initiative on racism and xenophobia in order to overcome the obstruction that has occurred within the Council. Article 13 of the Treaty may be used instead to introduce criminal sanctions in cases of discrimination based on race or nationality. The means exist, most obviously in Article 13, which undoubtedly forms the subject of a directive, and is therefore chiefly a Community matter. In such cases the Commission may also adopt proposals for criminal legislation."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples