Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-22-Speech-1-081"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011022.5.1-081"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin with the first report by Mr von Boetticher on judicial cooperation in civil matters.
The two initiatives you are debating today confirm that the European Parliament and the Commission will henceforth have an increased role in relation to the development of the SIS II, both in this initial phase in the field of funding, and in the definition of the future architecture of the system and its specific operation.
These two initiatives are in line with the conclusions of the Justice and Home Affairs Council at the end of May that favoured funding the development of SIS II by means of the Community budget from 2002.
In accordance with the two initiatives aimed at creating a committee to assist the Commission in the development of the SIS II, the European Parliament will be kept systematically informed of work in progress, by means of the institutional mechanisms for informing Parliament within the framework of commitology.
I must stress that, at the request of the Commission, a sum has been included in the 2001 draft budget for preparatory action in relation to the development of the SIS II. Given that this is for preparatory action, and in accordance with the rules on the execution of the budget, the Commission really does not require a legal basis for these preliminary expenses, but it is nevertheless aware that it cannot develop the SIS II without calling on the experience of Member States in relation to the current SIS and its operation. This experience is absolutely essential and the implementation of commitology offers a well-established structural solution with a view to assisting the Commission in its new responsibilities relating to the development of the SIS II.
If the principle of creating a committee to assist the Commission is acceptable, however, we would like to express our preference for a system of commitology based on the creation of an advisory committee and a management committee.
The Commission is pleased with the amendments proposed by Mr von Boetticher in this regard, and I hope that they will be approved in plenary session.
The Commission is also prepared to accept the European Parliament’s amendment on the delivery of a six-monthly report prepared by the Commission on the work on the development of the SIS II, not only to the Council but also to the European Parliament. This is not only important with regard to the principle of transparency, but also with regard to the role the European Parliament will have to play within the framework of the legislative measures necessary for the development of the SIS II, which require that the European Parliament is kept fully informed of all work in this area. Because, in fact, the two initiatives we are discussing today relate, above all, to the technical work involved in the implementation of the SIS II. This implementation also requires the adoption, when the time comes, of legislative measures based on the appropriate bases in the Treaties, which the European Parliament will be consulted on. These legislative measures will have to define all the essential elements of the SIS II, in particular, the purposes of the system, the categories of information to be included, the protection of information, control by a common control authority, the management of the future operational SIS II and the issue raised by Mr Coelho of whether or not to create an agency.
The points I have just highlighted will be the subject of a later debate, when the time comes, on the basis of the results of the feasibility study to be launched by the Commission at the beginning of 2002.
The reason that the Commission cannot support the amendments on these points today is not that we disagree with their content, but simply that to me it seems premature to deal with them within the framework of the two initiatives which are aimed solely at the funding of the development of the SIS II. We will have the opportunity to discuss these issues again and to make decisions, when the time comes, on the basis of legislative proposals.
Please allow me to conclude with the following positive statement: the development of the SIS II is a task which will concern us in the years to come and which must be achieved within a reasonable timescale that will allow the new Member States to be integrated into it and to thereby create the conditions for them to participate in our common area without frontiers.
Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, we have, in fact, had a particularly ambitious agenda in the field of civil judicial cooperation. By way of example, I would say that over the last two years, five regulations in this field have already been adopted by the Council, and two other proposals are under discussion. Two new legislative proposals are currently being prepared by the Commission.
The adoption of your opinion today, within the three months which have followed the delivery of the two initiatives, demonstrates the will and capacity of the European Parliament, of its Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs and its rapporteur, to contribute to the creation of the SIS II as soon as possible. This gives me great pleasure.
The aim of this proposal is to contribute to the establishment of a European judicial area in civil matters. The intention is not to propose a new action programme, but to contribute to the successful implementation of the existing action plans in this field, in particular, the Tampere conclusions.
This is why the support we suggest in these proposals is aimed not only at co-funding projects carried out by public and non-public institutions and organisations in the Member States, but also at funding Commission actions, such as actions aimed at ensuring the correct application of Community law in the civil field, which I am convinced will be of benefit to citizens.
I am very pleased to note that Mr von Boetticher has received our proposal with approval, and I would like to congratulate him on his excellent report.
With regard to the amendments proposed, the Commission accepts four out of the six of them. I am talking about the amendments on the two new recitals proposed by the Committee on Budgets, the new recital proposed by the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, and the amendments on the introduction of a definition of the term ‘legal practitioner’.
With regard to the amendment on the specific objectives of the framework programme, I prefer to preserve the Commission’s initial proposal, because it very closely pursues the objectives set in the conclusions of the Tampere European Council.
With regard to Amendment No 5, I well understand the rapporteur’s argument, but I believe that setting a strict threshold in relation to non-governmental organisations is also a way to promote the existence of genuine European organisations in this field. And I believe that the threshold we are proposing will remain practical, even in the context of the enlargement of the European Union. Furthermore, several non-governmental organisations in this field already play a significant role, including in a very significant number of the candidate countries.
Mr President, in relation to the second report on the Schengen Information System, I believe that this is a key element in the operation of the area without frontiers. The need for a second-generation SIS was recognised some years ago. This need is due, above all, to the limitations of the current SIS system. The system only allows for the integration of 18 countries. This is why the enlargement of the Union requires the development of a second-generation SIS that will permit the full integration of new Member States. Without the SIS II we will not have the conditions appropriate for the lifting of internal border controls in the countries which are currently candidates for accession to the European Union."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples