Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-26-Speech-3-045"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060426.10.3-045"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, before giving more substantive responses to the questions by Mr Brok, Mr Moscovici and Mr Van Orden, I would like to begin by expressing my sympathy for all people affected by the floods that recently hit Bulgaria and Romania and countries falling outside the scope of today’s debate, in particular Serbia. I can assure you that the Commission is following the situation with the greatest attention and is ready to offer advice and support in tackling the impact of the floods once the damage has been assessed, as we did last year in the case of Bulgaria and Romania.
A number of safeguards are already provided in existing Community legislation, for instance in the area of food safety or transport. In addition, the accession treaty contains three safeguard clauses: a general economic safeguard clause, a specific internal market safeguard clause and a third one which relates to justice and home affairs. Without going into details of how they can be invoked, by way of example I will take the internal market safeguard, which is specifically designed to deal with cases where a new Member State fails to fulfil commitments made in the accession negotiations. If such a failure causes or risks causing a serious breach in the functioning of the internal market, the Commission may take appropriate measures to deal with that situation, even before accession, with entry into force upon accession. It is important to note that this does not require a unanimous Council decision; it requires a Commission decision based on our objective risk assessment of a candidate country’s possible shortcomings.
It is clear that, in order to have a meaningful system of safeguard clauses, we also need a monitoring mechanism and, in its role as guardian of the treaties, the Commission will assume this duty and will verify the implementation of EU legislation in the two countries.
Concerning the first question as to whether the rhythm of reform in Bulgaria and Romania is such that they will be ready for accession by January 2007, the Commission is currently assessing the progress made in both countries and is not yet in a position to confirm the answer to this critical question. As I said to the Committee on Foreign Affairs on 3 April, the Commission will report on developments until the end of April, so the cut-off date is 30 April, the end of this week. The full factual basis will therefore be available in the first two weeks of May. The Commission will then provide an in-depth analysis on 16 May, and we will then be ready to discuss our assessment further with the honourable Members of Parliament.
However, let me underline the priority of all priorities. The completion and implementation of judicial reform and concrete results demonstrating that these have a real effect on the ground are of paramount importance for our assessment. Systemic conditions, structural conditions that show that the reforms are irreversible need to be in place. These are the critical yardsticks, since a fully functioning justice system underpins the functioning of the whole of society and the economy in its entirety.
On the basis of our objective and balanced assessment, the Commission will make a proposal on 16 May for a carefully calibrated decision that will maintain the momentum of essential remaining reforms up to and beyond accession of the two countries. I ask for the support of the Parliament and the Council for this rigorous and fair position.
Concerning the second question on the reform of the judiciary and the fight against corruption and organised crime, both countries have shown determination to undertake necessary reforms in this field. In Romania we note significant progress, as Romania has continued to pursue the implementation of its legal package of 2005.
I fully agree with Mr Moscovici that the rigorous monetary mechanism and the safeguard clause of postponement have provided very strong encouragement and an incentive, and these have produced very tangible results in the case of Romania.
In Bulgaria amendments have been made to the constitution, reducing the scope of the immunity of Members of Parliament and establishing the leading function of the prosecution service in most investigations. However, there remains ambiguity concerning the independence of the judiciary and there is a serious backlog in cases related to organised crime. As regards the fight against organised crime in Bulgaria, there are still very few investigations and prosecutions. The competent authorities seem in general to have a reactive instead of a proactive attitude. Therefore, urgent attention is needed in this area. The same is true concerning money laundering in Bulgaria.
Finally, on Mr Brok’s question concerning the safeguard clauses and monitoring, safeguard clauses are meant to tackle the possible negative consequences that may persist due to shortcomings in Bulgaria and Romania after accession. Safeguards may for instance involve temporarily suspending specific rights under the EU
which are directly related to the shortcomings of a new Member State."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples