Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-13-Speech-1-045"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001113.5.1-045"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, my task is a relatively easy one: if I am supposed to comment on behalf of the Legal Affairs Committee on the Portuguese Presidency’s proposal regarding involving Europol in the fight against money laundering, then I can only say that it is a good proposal. That is also why we have only submitted a very small number of proposals for amendments, because we can, of course, agree to this proposal. There is a broad consensus in all of the European institutions – including, of course, here in this House – that we want to take all reasonable and possible steps to counter money laundering. Previous speakers have already said all that needs to be said in this regard.
But, since I am now actually standing here and have the opportunity to comment on the issue of combating money laundering, I should very much like to voice some criticism. I should like to criticise something which actually has nothing at all to do with the proposal which we are debating today, but with the impact of the political position adopted by the Council on the second directive to combat money laundering.
From the outset, the European Parliament tried to work in close cooperation with the Council. I can only say that, as a result, the Council did admittedly make a big show of cooperating, but the bulk of the amendments tabled by us and adopted here in this House by a very large majority were not accepted. In this respect, I can only say that if the concept of combating money laundering is damaged, then this is the fault of the Council and not of Parliament. The rules which were designed in the past with banks and providers of financial services in mind have been applied, as it were, wholesale to some of the liberal professions, despite the fact that they are not at all suitable for them, and in full knowledge of the fact that under these circumstances it would be absolutely impossible to avoid a difficult second reading with the European Parliament and a conciliation procedure at the end. After all, this is certainly not about the privileges of lawyers or practitioners of other liberal professions. It is about fundamental rights. Quite simply, it is about a client seeking legal advice or support before a court being able – as is also stated in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, by the way – to go to a lawyer whom he trusts and to obtain his advice, without, if he reveals something to him, the lawyer being obliged to go directly to the public prosecutor’s office to blow the whistle on him. This is a fundamental right. This fundamental right must not be meddled with. The same goes for all areas where legal advice is dispensed.
I am therefore very grateful for the compromise formulation in the Roure report which was drafted here in committee, which has simply made it clear that this traditional protection of fundamental rights must continue to be guaranteed. I should also like to make it clear, however, that when lawyers fulfil the same functions as banks and financial service providers, then there is obviously no reason to protect that part of their activities. But this is about dispensing legal advice and representing people before a court of law. The protection of fundamental rights must be guaranteed in this regard.
As I have said, that is why I support the proposals on the table today but, at the same time, I would take this opportunity to give you advance notice that there will be a real battle with the Council over the common position on the second directive to combat money laundering."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples