Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-12-11-Speech-1-109"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-12-11"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Standing of victims in criminal procedure2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001211.7.1-109"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-12-11-Speech-1-1102
lpv:speaker	lp:Klaus-Heiner Lehne2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, two questions about this proposal played a decisive role in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. The first question was to what extent there actually was a legal basis for this proposal. As rapporteur, I took the view that the undertaking proposed to us here was admittedly a laudable one, but that, unfortunately, it was simply the case that within the European Union and also in relation to the Member States there were relatively clear rules about who had which competences. As rapporteur, my opinion is that issues relating to organising criminal prosecution and procedural criminal law do not fall within the competence of the Treaty on European Union and that these matters should be dealt with by the Member States. Unfortunately, the Committee did not go along with my proposal in this specific case, but, as rapporteur, I should nevertheless like to make this opinion known. The second aspect which played a certain part was the issue of evidence recorded on video. You may remember the debate on the so-called Di Pietro report, which was held here in this House some time ago. At the time, this was already a highly controversial matter. The Committee on Legal Affairs agreed with the rapporteur's view that this recorded evidence was not a suitable instrument in a State under the rule of law and therefore deleted video recordings from the relevant paragraph of the article concerned. I would ask that this also be taken into account here in further discussions. Otherwise the proposal is very much to be welcomed. It would only have been better if it had been dealt with where it belongs, namely in the domain of the national legislator, who could decide all these matters in an exemplary fashion. Not everything needs to be regulated at European level; if it did an all-embracing competence would have been inserted in the Treaty. But this was not done. That is why we should perhaps consider once again whether it is right for us to vote in favour of this initiative."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph