Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-12-12-Speech-3-021"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011212.2.3-021"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, as you know, today’s debate in this Chamber is taking place in a particular international context, which only underlines the need, the urgent need, to achieve the objectives of the Amsterdam Treaty and to respect the programme set out by the Heads of State and Government of the EU countries in Tampere in 1999. It is also taking place in the context of yesterday’s Justice and Home Affairs Council whose heavy agenda reflected the intensive nature of the ongoing work, and of the forthcoming Laeken Summit, a mid-term meeting to evaluate the progress made since Tampere and, I hope, give new impetus to our efforts to bring our programme to fruition. Finally, it looks forward to the medium-term prospect of the Intergovernmental Conference to be held in 2004, against the background of the enlargement of the Union. Some of the questions that have been raised, especially on the role of the European Parliament in the field of justice and home affairs and on protecting the citizen’s fundamental rights in the European judicial area, will figure very largely on the agenda of that debate.
The third point that was emphasised concerns the delay in achieving the Tampere objectives. The speaker is addressing all the institutions and authorities responsible for implementing the programme decided at Tampere. The latest edition of the Commission’s programme includes an initial evaluation of the progress made. Delays have indeed occurred, especially in certain areas such as asylum and immigration or the minimal harmonisation of penal sanctions. As you know, the mid-term review that will take place at the Laeken European Council is therefore a crucial step. That will be the moment to check whether the commitments made in Tampere and reiterated on 21 September will be reflected by a real will on the part of the Member States to move ahead. It will also be the moment to learn lessons from the successes achieved and difficulties encountered to date. If the Tampere objectives were re-evaluated and, in particular, if the deadlines that were set were called into question again, we would see a crisis of public confidence vis-à-vis a political project, which, as everyone well knows, is essential and a matter of priority, whatever the remaining difficulties.
So what we need today is resolve as much as method, in order not to disappoint public opinion’s legitimate expectations as also the men and women whose job it is to protect our freedom, guarantee our security and ensure that justice becomes more accessible.
The Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers held last week produced encouraging results in terms of the Member States’ resolve to match the commitments they made with their actions. However, it also illustrated all the limitations and ambiguities of a decision-making process based entirely on unanimity. In Laeken, the Commission will underline the fact that we can only overcome the reluctance to move forward if we begin by injecting a new dose of political will. When the Heads of State and Government embark on a new, more general debate on the future of Europe at the Laeken Summit, that will also be the time to establish a link between the progress achieved, the progress still to be made and the future of the Union and of the way it functions. They will have to reflect on how the next Intergovernmental Conference could introduce institutional changes and reform the decision-making mechanisms in such a way as to ensure the full achievement of the area of freedom, security and justice.
The fourth question concerns harmonisation in the field of criminal law. First of all, let me remind you that the Treaty refers specifically to the harmonisation of criminal law as such. The object here is not so much to achieve mutual recognition as to make sure the EU Member States combat acts that affect all the countries of the Union in a coordinated manner, in the same manner and by imposing penalties of equivalent severity. This will be an instrument that complements the mutual recognition of judicial decisions.
Of course, as I have always said and will repeat today, harmonisation must be handled with sensitivity and applied only where it is necessary. The Tampere European Council listed the sectors where this rapprochement is needed. There have been Member State initiatives or Commission proposals covering all these aspects. Several of them have been adopted, others are well on the way to being so and I believe I can say that we will soon have a common set of instruments to fulfil this mandate.
Regarding procedural law, however, I have already had occasion to say that the Commission intends to present a communication on this subject, which has become all the more necessary in the light of the most interesting political debate on the European arrest warrant.
The purpose of this communication would be to define common standards for the protection of individual rights in criminal proceedings in relation to a number of aspects that derive from the Convention on Human Rights and the Strasbourg Court’s case law. This approach would help strengthen the mutual trust on which the construction of the European judicial area depends, both in the Union as it is today and, later, in a Europe enlarged to 25 or 30 Member States.
The fifth point concerns the democratic deficit that still exists within the Union in fields relating to justice and home affairs. This is a dual question, since it concerns, firstly, your institution’s role in the decision-making process in the field of justice and home affairs, and secondly, how it can exercise its powers in the appropriate manner. It is very important to ensure that our resolve to make progress in achieving our objectives goes hand in hand with improved democratic and judicial scrutiny.
Firstly, I must say that over these past two years the Commission has endeavoured to inform and involve the European Parliament as closely as possible in the definition of its strategic guidelines and its initiatives. Nonetheless, it remains true that we need to think more deeply about Parliament’s participation not only in defining the Union’s strategy but also in its implementation. The Commission regards this as a key point with regard to the progress remaining to be made.
Mainstreaming matters that come under the first pillar with those regarded as coming under the third pillar is proving a source of constant difficulties. Moreover, there is some risk that this situation could block the decision-making process; even if this risk is overcome at the price of artificially separating acts that in fact have the same aim, this deadlock would make the Union’s action unintelligible to the citizens. I therefore welcome the Council recommendation, which your Parliament adopted on 15 November this year, on criminal sanctions and Community law, calling for, at the very least, the communitarisation of judicial cooperation in criminal matters.
Starting, therefore, with the questions put by Mrs Boumediene-Thiery, I will try to reply to the questions of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs.
Regarding Parliament’s access to sensitive information held by the Commission, one of the practical conditions allowing your institution to exercise its right of scrutiny properly, let me point out that a framework agreement, dated 5 July, exists between our two institutions and that the Commission will apply it to the full.
Finally, Mrs Boumediene-Thiery asked about strengthening the candidate countries’ institutional capacities. I believe that in the reports we have published and in our constant evaluation of the improvement in the candidate countries’ capacities, we have borne this in mind and given all the necessary publicity to our evaluation of each of the candidate countries.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the enhanced cooperation between the Union and the United States in the fight against terrorism, I believe this cooperation shows the extent to which the European dimension cannot now be dissociated from any complete and effective international action taken against transnational incidents. Of course, this cooperation is still in its fairly early days. It has given rise to problems, especially in guaranteeing full respect for the principles of our European law and of international law. I see the development of this European dimension as an opportunity to assert our values and our principles rather than sacrificing our principles on the altar of cooperation.
To conclude, Madam President, Mr President, Ministers, ladies and gentlemen, the Union’s response to the challenges and issues of our times must be well considered but rapid, transparent but effective, progressive but coordinated. It is along these lines that I see the future of that vast building site, which is the area of freedom, security and justice, and that I intend to pursue the cooperative relations with the European Parliament on which we embarked two and a half years ago. I personally am very grateful for the commitment of all the members of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and above all its chairman, Graham Watson, to whom I offer particularly warm thanks.
The first question raised touches on a matter of principle: the objective of protecting the citizens, laid down in the Amsterdam Treaty. It is a question that stands at the top of the Union’s political agenda, in the light of the current, dramatic international events and of deadlines that are drawing increasingly near, such as enlargement. I would say that this objective will certainly not prejudice respect for the fundamental rights set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Commission is most concerned to ensure that the proposals put forward for guaranteeing internal security and the protection of our fellow citizens are balanced and proportionate and are consistent with a system of values based first and foremost on the rule of law.
First of all, a number of quasi-constitutional texts guarantee these rights in the European Union and are referred to systematically in the Commission’s proposals. This applies to the European Convention on Human Rights as also to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. These texts govern the rights of the Union as they do national rights.
Furthermore, I believe it is imperative to point out that the Union’s objectives with regard to the protection of citizens are not just consistent with the fundamental rights set out in the EU Charter but are based on these rights. In that sense, we welcome the recommendations made in the Watson report on demonstrations organised in conjunction with the European Council. These recommendations are reasonable and we believe they create a balance between, on the one hand, the citizens’ freedom of expression and their full use of the fundamental right to demonstrate and, on the other hand, the need not to give free rein to those who are in fact against any democratic debate and believe they can pass on their messages by means of violent confrontation with the forces of law and order.
As for the recommendation to launch a dialogue on the internal and external impact of globalisation, let me say that the same concern will be apparent in the communication the Commission will be submitting next January on the external aspects of a sustainable development policy.
Turning to the second point, Mrs Boumediene-Thiery’s question about the possibility of taking special measures to combat the threat of terrorism, I do not think one could say the European Union is going down that road. Once again, although it is true that to some extent it is urgent to take decisions, and in particular measures to strengthen police and judicial cooperation to combat the most serious attacks on our freedoms, our values and our institutions, I do not believe that the initiatives the European Union has taken or has proposed can be described as special measures, i.e. as measures derogating from key principles because of special circumstances.
No, the proposed measures are basic measures; they were taken, it is true, in special circumstances, but they are not makeshift measures and they are in fact consistent with the mandate our governments and our nations conferred on us when they adopted the Amsterdam Treaty. Let me also take this opportunity to express my pleasure and my congratulations to the Belgian Presidency for managing, yesterday in Rome, to consolidate decisions taken by the Justice and Home Affairs Council to adopt the framework decision on combating terrorism and the framework decision on the European arrest warrant.
The rapporteur’s suggestion that we should include a temporary validity clause or a review clause is interesting in principle, i.e. the idea of introducing an obligation to assess the impact of a proposal adopted in terms of its objective."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples