Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-17-Speech-4-052"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000217.3.4-052"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, the draft Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union is approaching adoption by the Council. Most say it is about time. According to the action plan to combat organised crime adopted by the Council in April 1997, the work on the draft MLA Convention should have been finalised before the end of 1997. More time will pass before the Convention actually enters into force, given the fact that this requires Member States’ ratification. Even with the new rules introduced by the Treaty of Amsterdam, foreseeing its entry into force once at least half of the Member States have adopted the Convention, I would like to urge the Member States to do everything in their power to speedily ratify this Convention. Past experience with ratification of European Union conventions in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters is unfortunately disappointing.
This Convention will not create a new or different system of Mutual Assistance. Instead it aims at building on tried and tested mechanisms that have been in place for a very long time, such as the ones foreseen by the Council of Europe Convention on mutual assistance of 1959 and the Benelux Treaty. The draft that the Council has elaborated contains provisions on a variety of matters that have been discussed by several Members of Parliament. It is a considerable achievement of the Convention that where at all possible requested Member States shall comply with the formalities and procedures indicated by the requesting Member States. This is particularly important with regard to the possibility of using evidence that is obtained in court. Furthermore, requests can be made directly between the competent authorities without any need to go via central authorities.
Generally speaking, there are two kinds of provisions: those that create an obligation to render assistance, such as the provisions on telephone and video conferences, controlled deliveries and on the interception of telecommunications; and those where no such obligation is created and only a legal framework is provided for Member States that wish to cooperate in the manner prescribed, for example, the provisions on joint investigation teams, covert investigations and the sending and service of procedural documents.
The Commission particularly welcomes the inclusion of provisions that deal with new or modern investigative techniques, given their effectiveness in fighting the form of crime that is best placed to take advantage of the opening of borders – organised crime. It is all too easy to get carried away by the obvious need to improve the effectiveness of criminal investigations. However, one aspect of any action with regard to criminal procedures must not be forgotten – the right of defence. I very much appreciate that the report of Mr Di Pietro, whom I salute for the excellent work he has done in such a short period of time, includes the right of defence as one of its main points. At the present time it is entirely up to the Member States to ensure that those rights are respected under the scrutiny of the Council of Europe’s Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. It remains to be seen whether this will change with the new European Union Charter on Fundamental Rights, work on which has just begun.
We must recognise that Article 18 concerns what is clearly a controversial decision. The article was carefully crafted in Council in very lengthy discussions, in order to ensure that intelligence activities would remain effective and that criminal investigations will be covered. As far as criminal investigations are concerned, for which I am responsible, I take note of the invitation that was addressed to the Commission and the Council by several Members of the European Parliament to take this issue on board and to address it on a common legal basis, having regard to the relevance the interception of telecommunications may have as evidence before the courts.
The Commission is fully aware of the fact that the draft we have before us is not perfect or ideal. However, we must be realistic. The text we have is the result of the mixture of the institutional set-ups foreseen for judicial cooperation in criminal matters under both the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties respectively. This is what we have, and only practical experience will show us in detail if and where there are shortcomings and what additional steps will have to be taken. I am quite aware of the fact that the further development of mutual trust and mutual confidence among the judicial systems of the Member States will ease the road we have ahead of us.
Apart from that, the Tampere European Council has already indicated in which direction we, in the Commission, should go. Among the steps to be taken will be the implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions and the setting-up of the Euro Just project.
The Commission sincerely hopes that the European Parliament will support its efforts to make progress in these important fields. I do not expect you to wave through or rubber stamp everything you are confronted with in the coming years. I am counting more on the European Parliament to be not only a critical observer, as it has been in this case, but also an active player in taking the Union forward in the fight against crime."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples