Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-17-Speech-4-038"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000217.3.4-038"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters that we are examining today contains the minimum requirements for efficient and rapid cooperation between the various judicial or investigative bodies concerned. It pertains, among other things, to notifications, information exchanges, the temporary transfer of detainees, the restitution of property, testimonies via video conferences, investigative activities and ‘undercover’ activities, and the interception of telephone calls.
This is the bare minimum on which an agreement can be reached, and it should immediately be said that if any amendments, such as Amendments Nos 32 or 81, or the revised Amendments Nos 70 or 71, were to be passed, the whole convention would be reduced to an exchange of notifications or information and at this point should simply be scrapped, and we would vote against it. I hope that the common sense of our fellow MEPs in the other groups will lead them to reject these amendments.
The fact that the convention has not been turned into a framework agreement also constitutes a defeat for this Parliament. As Commissioner Vitorino will have noted in all the various speeches, the need has emerged to draw up a framework of common rules, which is to say that we cannot continue in this manner, with this disparate agenda, with these piecemeal agreements which relate to diverse sectors such as that of investigation. What is, on the other hand, absolutely necessary is to have a bare minimum of set rules that are valid within the Community, and which clearly provide as many additional safeguards as possible, and will also provide guarantees with a view to enlargement. My thoughts turn to what may become of this Community, of these conventions and judicial relations if, for example, a fascist country such as Turkey became a member of the Union. It would truly perplex me.
We need a
as everyone has said – and common rules, especially procedural ones, which guarantee the rule of common law throughout the Community. It is clear that this is primarily an issue for the IGC and one that addresses an aspiration to which this Parliament can only make a limited contribution in as much as everything depends on the Council and the Commission.
I believe that this first half of the year, in which we have a Commissioner from Portugal and Portuguese Presidency of the Council, provides an excellent opportunity to give an initial spur to this shared aspiration.
It is precisely for this reason that we are in favour of adopting Amendments Nos 78 and 79, which already prefigure a minimum of set rules on interceptions and on video conferences. On the one hand, we eagerly await the successful outcome of this vote, precisely so that this convention – which, I repeat, already sets minimum rules – is not stripped of all meaning, while on the other hand we are also looking forward to any form of proposal that may arrive from the Commission with a view to definitively putting into effect this minimum Community law."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples