Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-11-30-Speech-3-207"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051130.18.3-207"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, from the speeches I have heard I deduce that this subject cannot be exhausted in the short interval of time set aside for this evening’s debate. It is a subject of considerable importance for Europe’s space of legal competence and these latest observations on the relations between the European Court of Justice and the national courts also require careful consideration, which I will not fail to give them.
As is obvious, criminal law is intended to punish the unlawful conduct of individuals and, if the matter falls under Community competence, it seems frankly unlikely that Parliament – the institution representing democracy – should not participate in the creation of criminal law. That would mean that, if Parliament were excluded, only two of the European Community institutions – the Council and the Commission – would be participating in the decision-making process in matters of Community competence. That is a key justification for the ruling of the Court of Justice, as well as a principle which, naturally, we shall investigate thoroughly.
How, then, can an incorrect legal basis be transformed into a correct legal basis? There are three methods that may be considered.
As has already been stated in several of your speeches – such as that of Mr Gargani – if it is necessary to change the substance of the measure, this is done by withdrawing the measure itself – for example, a framework decision – and replacing it with a proposal for a new directive, either on the legal basis, or on the substance, and thus applying the codecision procedure.
It might, however, be possible – and I do not know if any cases of this sort exist – that a framework decision has a legal basis which proves to be irrelevant, whilst its content, on the other hand, is accepted. In such a case – if Parliament and the Council agree on the need to change only the legal basis, whilst upholding the content – I myself can see a second method, which consists not in withdrawing the proposal and replacing it with a new initiative, but rather in an interinstitutional agreement between Parliament and the Council, through which, quickly and inexpensively, it may be agreed to alter the legal basis and uphold the substance. This is a hypothesis for which it would be very interesting to hear the evaluation of the Parliament’s Committee on Justice.
Finally there is a third way, which we have already applied a few days ago, and for which we await the decision of the Court: the appeal that is before the Court of Justice, contesting a framework decision containing an incorrect legal basis.
In conclusion, Mr President, I wish to make it clear that the Commission will only ever exercise these competences if it proves necessary.
Criminal law is, I stress, a serious instrument of the legal system, which is why criminal legislation – which, as the founding fathers of law teach us, is the final remedy against the offences of individuals – must only be applied when it proves absolutely necessary."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples