Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-10-20-Speech-1-097"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081020.14.1-097"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, today, we are discussing an issue that is of the utmost importance to citizens. Our Europe is a pleasant place where people enjoy increasing mobility. It is a place where, increasingly, marriages are taking place between nationals of different countries or couples are moving to a different country, and of course this is a good thing and is one of the accomplishments of the European Union. Unfortunately, there is also a drawback to this accomplishment, however, which is that these marriages often end in separation, and then there is the issue of the necessary divorce.
The Council has a major problem: it has to take a unanimous decision, and there is currently one Member State that is quite simply standing in the way of this unanimity. That is why our committee tabled this oral question to the Council and the European Commission. I consider it very regrettable that the Council is not present at this time to reply to this question. The Minister has just left. It is essential that we know what to do now, for our own sake and that of citizens and the future of the European Union.
The first question to the European Commission – I am pleased that you are here to reply, Mr Barrot – is as follows: do you intend to withdraw your proposal? The second is: do you intend to submit a proposal to the Council to establish an enhanced cooperation procedure according to Article 11 of the EC Treaty and in compliance with Articles 43 and 45 of the Treaty? I should have liked the Council to tell me whether it really intends to take this course, as that is the big question that arises.
Current law is so unsatisfactory in some respects that a couple may be unable to find a competent judge or law for their divorce. Naturally, this is a very unpleasant situation for these citizens, and we must come up with a solution and an answer. This concerns people’s lives, which are of the utmost importance.
I am pleased that the European Commission has tackled the subject, therefore, and I should like to reiterate straight away that there is to be no harmonisation of the law in this matter – indeed this is not permitted, and it is stated quite clearly in the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community that the law in such matters is the domain of Member States.
Yet we must ensure that there is transparency and that citizens are able to use this law. After all, the legislation is very diverse. There is Malta on the one hand, with no divorce at all, and Sweden on the other, where it is possible to obtain one within six months. There is the Netherlands, where homosexual marriage is permitted, and Poland, where such a thing would be inconceivable. These are all questions that arise and need to be answered.
We have done good work in the European Parliament and enjoyed constructive cooperation on this with the European Commission and also the Council. The Council is key – it has to decide unanimously what will be done in this field in future. Unfortunately, it is there that the problem now lies, but I shall return to this later. The response that the European Commission has suggested to us is very positive. Firstly, it would like to increase the choice of law under which a couple can divorce, provided both parties are in agreement – although it goes without saying that, if this is to be truly applicable, there must be a connection to the life, place of residence or place of marriage of the couple or to other aspects.
The question also arises as to what happens if a couple or just one of the partners wants a divorce and the couple cannot agree on the law to be applied. In these circumstances, we take the view that there cannot be such great freedom of choice, as we need to ensure that there is a catalogue. We cannot accept ‘forum shopping’. We cannot accept a situation in which the stronger partner chooses the law most favourable to him- or herself and the other is disadvantaged. That is unacceptable. This is why we have two different responses in these matters.
One particularly important principle quite clearly applies in both cases: we must ensure that both partners are very well informed about the consequences – both social and legal – of the choice of law. Examples are custody matters, alimony and all such issues that are connected in this case too. The parties concerned must be aware of this before they take a decision. We are asking that judges verify that the partners are really aware of the consequences of their choice.
It is also important that we prevent the application of law from somewhere or other that is unacceptable in accordance with the principles of the European Union – for example Sharia law, Chinese law or whatever. In this regard, too, we have come up with clear wording – particularly in Amendments 25 and 30, which I have attempted to reinforce with my Amendment 36 – namely stating that the respective law must be in keeping with the basic principles of the European Union or it cannot be applied. This goes without saying as far as we are concerned.
The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats has tabled a number of amendments that I find absolutely impossible to accept. These impose a total limit on what we already have, and in addition would violate existing international law, for example that of the Hague Convention. We cannot accept this. We need further dialogue, and I hope that we do manage to find a solution to the problem by tomorrow. At all events, I am much obliged to Mr Demetriou for his cooperation with me; it has been very constructive."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples