Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-17-Speech-4-238"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-05-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Mutual recognition of final decisions in criminal matters2
dcterms:Language	"pt"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010517.12.4-238"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-05-17-Speech-4-2392
lpv:speaker	lp:Carlos Coelho2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 chair; Temporary committee on the Echelon interception system (2000-07-11--2001-09-05)3 unknown; Partido Social Democrata (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"I should like to add my voice to those of Ana Palacio Vallersundi and the speakers in general in their entirely justified praise for the work of the rapporteur, Mr Di Lello Finuoli. As he knows, despite our political differences, we are pleased to point out the high quality of the work he has produced and the legal rigour of his proposals. In this debate, as in the one we had this morning, we are taking steps along the path traced out in Tampere to create the area of freedom, security and justice. In a Union where there is freedom of movement enjoyed by all the citizens, including those who act outside the law, it is important to prevent the possibility of there being penal countries. In relation to this legal framework on judicial decisions in criminal matters, the report deserves our applause and gives a very balanced view. Allow me to highlight the precision of the final judgment concept, the register of pending procedures, the idea that nobody can be judged twice for the same crime, but, on the other hand, the fact that a sentence in one Member State should be taken into consideration as a case of recidivism in another Member State, the solution in which the implementation of custodial penalties should be governed by the State that implements the sentence, whereas pardons, amnesties and declarations of the existence of the penalty or of the offence should derive from the law of the State which delivers the judgment. Mutual recognition, ladies and gentlemen, is only effective if it can be achieved without great administrative obstacles. A degree of mutual trust is therefore required between Member States concerning their judicial procedures. We also know that the recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters is a matter of great sensitivity that raises delicate questions and reaches to the core of values protected by law in our various societies. There are differences between our Member States, despite their extremely substantial, noteworthy common cultural and legal heritage. We must therefore recommend that the Commission should be cautious in this matter and adopt a policy of taking small steps."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph