Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-26-Speech-3-198"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070926.17.3-198"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too would like to thank the Council representative. Ladies and gentlemen, the Commission – and I myself – have from the outset followed and supported the work of the European Parliament's Temporary Committee on this well-known topic and on the serious accusations and serious events concerned.
The other topic is ratification of the extradition agreement between Europe and the United States. If there had already been, as there should have been, a European agreement – which we have signed but not yet ratified – then the rules on the extradition of prisoners from and to the United States would have been a lot clearer. We are talking here about prisoners under investigation for, or suspected of, terrorism. This agreement has yet to be ratified by certain Member States, fortunately only a few. I have made another formal appeal to all the Ministers of Justice to ratify this European extradition agreement with the United States as soon as possible.
Then there is the subject of supervision of the intelligence services. This subject is covered in both reports, but it is a sensitive matter. I think what counts above all else here is the national response, although certain common requirements can be highlighted. The first requirement is to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny in the Member States. Some countries have adopted, or are adopting, national laws to tighten up substantially their national parliaments' powers of scrutiny over the activities of their secret services. This is the road along which we should be going, in my opinion, because, as you will appreciate, I cannot imagine a future common European law governing the secret services, though I do think it is extremely useful to discuss the topic.
To conclude, Mr President, I think that this is a topic that we must continue to discuss, bearing in mind the rule of law as a principle and of course respect for fundamental rights; but fundamental rights also include the right not to come under accusation except on the basis of evidence gathered according to the proper procedures.
The seriousness of these events as such, even the very fact of imagining that they may have occurred, obviously makes it essential for all three institutions, Commission, Parliament and Council, to cooperate. We should of course repeat once again – and I am happy to do so – that the war on terror must be waged with full respect for fundamental rights and the rule of law. These are the two necessary conditions for democracy to function.
In this spirit, I believe that unlawful prisoner transfers, and the hypothesis that more or less secret places of detention exist – if such events were to be demonstrated in the appropriate manner – would undoubtedly constitute a serious violation of international law and fundamental human rights. We are all aware that the members of the European Union, all of them, are obliged to comply with the important principles of the Convention on Human Rights, especially Articles 5 and 6.
We hope of course that these events will be thoroughly investigated in the Member States. These investigations must obviously be conducted by the competent judicial authorities. One point must be clear, but it has been clearly stated several times, both in the report by Mr Fava and in the Council of Europe report: a parliamentary report can set out facts, but Parliament naturally has neither the power nor the duty to conduct a judicial inquiry.
Obviously, when evidence from unknown sources is cited, the rule of law – which we must respect – dictates that investigations be entrusted to free, independent courts. It is they that have a duty to reveal the sources lying behind an accusation. Clearly, accusing a Member State or individual without revealing the sources for that accusation is a principle which is admissible in a parliamentary report but not in a judicial investigation. That is why I hope the judicial investigations will continue, as is happening in some Member States, including my own country. However, the report evidently needs to be followed up, so I shall list the initiatives that I believe can contribute to its follow-up.
On 23 July I wrote to the Polish and Romanian Governments, reminding them of their duty to hold a full, in-depth investigation and asking them for detailed information about whether the investigations had begun and what the outcome had been. I hope that both governments will reply, and I shall of course inform you of their replies, especially because I believe that transparency and truth demand that when one is accused of something one must have every legal means of explaining and demonstrating that the accusation is untrue, or else of entrusting the inquiry to an independent court. It is in the interest of an accused party, in my opinion, for there to be a very clear answer.
My second point is this: I have drawn up a questionnaire on terrorism for all Member States, as I mentioned at the last part-session. The questionnaire asks each Member State what measures it has adopted to combat terrorism, what the results have been in terms of the effectiveness of national laws and, in particular, what level of protection for fundamental human rights is afforded by national legislation. My intention is to analyse the responses and then draw up a report for the Council and Parliament on the effectiveness of the Member States' counter-terrorism measures and their suitability and compatibility with the principle of respect for fundamental rights.
My third point relates to air traffic. I made a commitment to the LIBE Committee, promising to look into an extremely important legal aspect that is not covered at present: where does the borderline lie between the definition of a civil aircraft and a government aircraft, in other words one not subject to normal controls on civil aircraft? Well, this work is underway, as promised, and the European Commission is to produce a communication on general aviation. The communication will be adopted by the Commission before the end of this year, very soon therefore, and we shall of course put forward a proposal for a better definition of this concept of government aeroplane, which clearly is often interpreted in a way that circumvents the necessary controls.
However, there is another initiative concerning air traffic. It is part of a general solution introducing common rules for all Member States on every type of aeroplane that enters the European Common Aviation Area without a flight plan. You no doubt know that as from 1 January 2009 the rules implementing the so-called single European airspace will introduce common requests to all Member States for flight plans, so in this context we shall harmonise the rules on the flight plans of all aircraft whether they pass through or enter European airspace. This will be of enormous benefit because it will eliminate the differential treatment that we have noted in Member States concerning overflight and landing."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples