Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-12-12-Speech-3-396"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2007-12-12"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Maintenance obligations (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"el"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20071212.36.3-396"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-12-12-Speech-3-3972
lpv:speaker	lp:Panayiotis Demetriou2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with India (2007-03-15--2009-07-13)3 member; LIBE (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Armenia, EU-Azerbaijan and EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committees (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of south-east Europe (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 substitute; AFCO (2007-06-19--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Dimokratikos Synagermos (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2007-07-23--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, first of all I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Grabowska, on her initiative in raising this issue and on the very positive view she has expressed this evening. Fellow Members, the round of consultations of the Hague Conference, which began seven years ago, is drawing to a close. The question arises: what progress has been made on the issue of mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments in international private law? Where is the declaration that the principle of mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments is the cornerstone of judicial and police cooperation in the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice? The answer is that no great progress has been made in this direction. The 2004 Hague Programme has not been promoted to the degree that was needed, despite the efforts and initiatives of the Commissioner responsible, Mr Frattini. Unfortunately, the misuse of appeals to national sovereignty by some Member States is a hindrance to the harmonisation of the law, not only on substantive matters, but also on questions of procedure. These general observations do not, of course, negate the value and significance of the proposal we are discussing. On the contrary, they underline the need to adopt further proposals for Council regulations, covering the whole field of family law: divorce, separation, maintenance and property matters. Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 on recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility is in need of radical reform and modernisation. This need is indeed being addressed to a large extent with the proposal for the amending regulation, but unfortunately only on the question of maintenance. The differences in the substantive law of the Member States, under the vital heading of justice, remain. There is still a long way to go. Even so, where there is scope for convergence, this harmonisation of the law should be pushed forward. The amendments proposed by the European Parliament fill many of the gaps in the proposal and improve its content. Above all, they overcome many obstacles which hinder the enforcement of maintenance judgments anywhere in the European Union, and they limit the debtor parent’s or spouse’s scope for evading justice when he or she has moved from one EU Member State to another. Precisely this point is addressed by the amendment which I have tabled to Article 33a, in which I attempt, firstly, not to leave unlimited scope for non-enforcement of an order on grounds of a change of circumstances and, secondly, to allow latitude for dealing with the situation in this way when there are serious, really serious, pertinent circumstances which give the court precisely this right to revise its opinion."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph