Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-06-Speech-3-061"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020206.3.3-061"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr de Miguel, ladies and gentlemen, the Commission is pleased to be able to take part in today’s debate, which we consider politically important for the future of the area of freedom, security and justice. We have, on several previous occasions, examined the legal configuration of the European arrest warrant and the framework decision on measures for combating terrorism in the light of the Watson report, which was adopted by Parliament on 5 September 2001. I would like to reiterate that the Commission was already working on these areas over a year ago, at the request of the Tampere European Council, and I think that Parliament can testify that the Commission treated this subject with the desired importance, so that negotiations could be completed by the deadline we were set by the Extraordinary European Council following the events of 11 September. Moreover, I would once again like to praise the efforts of the Belgian Presidency to achieve the results that are the subject of our debate today.
To claim that the aim of this instrument is to punish such demonstrations would be a purely popularity-seeking exercise. Everything is now perfectly clear and established in law.
Furthermore, the Council will be issuing a recital and a statement to confirm that the framework decision will not apply to the behaviour of those who are acting in order to preserve or restore democratic values.
As for the respect for fundamental rights, a subject that both Parliament and the Commission treat with particular attention, I believe that the two texts are satisfactory.
Regarding the arrest warrant, it has been repeatedly reiterated, most notably in Article 1, that in the execution of a European arrest warrant, the Member States and judicial authorities must always ensure that they scrupulously observe the principles recognised by Article 6 of the Treaty and that are reflected in the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights.
We have also confirmed that it is not possible to expel or extradite a person to a State where there is a serious risk of that person facing the death penalty, torture or other punishment or inhuman or degrading treatment.
The two texts before you are an important step in improving the ability of the European Union and the Member States to fight effectively against organised crime in general and against terrorism in particular. As we wished, the European arrest warrant will fully replace the extradition process throughout the European Union, something that had been requested by the Tampere European Council in October 1999, a request that was reiterated by the Extraordinary European Council of September 2001.
I would also like to stress that, from the outset, the Tampere European Council not only advocated using the European arrest warrant to combat terrorism, but also to make the European arrest warrant an instrument that would replace the entire extradition procedure between Member States. The requirement of ‘dual criminality’ – under which the person accused can only be surrendered if the facts that motivated the issuing of an arrest warrant also constitute a crime in the Member State where the arrest warrant is to be executed – is abolished for 32 offences that are punishable by a term of at least three years’ imprisonment in the Member State which issued the arrest warrant. This list effectively covers the most serious crimes and the largest part of these was taken from the Europol Convention, which was ratified by all the Member States, meaning that it was subject to the democratic vote of the national parliaments of the 15 Member States.
The European arrest warrant will enable European magistrates to work directly together, with full independence and whilst fully observing fundamental rights. The administrative phase of the extradition procedure has been abolished, the political nature of the extradition procedure has been abolished, the procedure has been placed entirely under the authority of the magistrates and judges of the Member States, and I think that this plays a crucial part in strengthening the area of freedom, security and justice. As far as terrorism is concerned, the text will enable us to harmonise the definition of terrorist offences at Member State-level.
The text defines terrorist offences in terms of specific acts, such as attacks upon a person’s life or upon the physical integrity of a person, kidnapping or hostage taking, causing extensive destruction to a government or public facility and seizure of aircraft, and also in terms of the aim pursued such as intimidating a population, destabilising the structures of a country or an international organisation, unduly compelling a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act.
It also provides a definition of a terrorist group, which is inspired by the concept of a criminal organisation established by the Joint Action of 21 December 1998, and makes it a specific offence to direct a group and participate in a terrorist group.
Furthermore, a mitigation mechanism provides for a system that aims to facilitate the cooperation of reformed terrorists with the police and judicial authorities.
I would like to stress that this definition is particularly important, at a time when the European Union must speak with the same voice at the negotiations that are currently taking place at the United Nations in New York on the adoption of the international convention on global terrorism.
We intended, however, to clarify some aspects of the text, particularly in the light of the many comments by MEPs. I hope that you will be pleased to see your views brought together by the text which was adopted by the Council, particularly those views regarding trade unions or anti-globalisation demonstrations. These activities cannot, under any circumstances, be classified as crimes by the framework decision, even when they do occasionally get out of hand."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples