Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-23-Speech-1-082"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020923.6.1-082"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, victim protection has already long been a topic of political discussion even at European level. Parliament has regularly called, ever since the 1980s, for an improvement in the position of victims of crime. That victims of criminal offences have to be supported and protected is not a matter of dispute; the only question is how this is to be done, and to what extent. With the Vienna Action Plan, Europe took up the issue of care and compensation for victims. In 1999, Parliament's agenda included an item on the improvement of the position of crime victims in the EU, and at Tampere there was a call for the establishment of minimum standards for the protection of crime victims.
Today, we in Europe's Parliament are giving our opinion on the Commission Green Paper on compensation to crime victims. We are doing this out of the conviction that the rules of nation states on the compensation of victims are inadequate. It is unacceptable that victims should be compensated differently within the European Union, simply because, over and above the misfortune of falling victim of a crime, they were unlucky enough to be victims in the wrong country. To take one example, one Member State may take over the costs of psychiatric treatment of victims of sexual violence, whilst in others, the costs of all medical treatment needed as a result of other offences are covered.
Looking at another area, the burden of proof in all Member States rests with the applicant for compensation, but there are great variations in the degree of proof, and another example is that, in certain Member States, it is required that an offence shall have been reported to the police before any compensation can be paid out, whilst in others that is not the case. I adduce these examples in an attempt to show the quite different assumptions on the basis of which the fifteen Member States work.
Critics of the Commission and of Parliament charge that we are too slow to pass and implement resolutions on the protection and compensation of victims, and the criticism is also levelled that this Green Paper is aiming at a Community initiative in the form of minimum standards. What is sought by many victim-support organisations is harmonisation. I can well understand why it is victim-support organisations in particular that seek speedy solutions, but many small steps and comprehensive educational work are needed if we are to achieve the objective of Europe-wide victim protection. That means finding and deciding on common rules for all, in all the Member States.
It is, then, all the more important to take the first step of laying down minimum standards for State compensation for those victims of criminal offences who get no compensation from their assailant or by other means. All this is covered by this Green Paper. This is a good approach, and, on behalf of the PPE Group, I welcome it as being the right way towards Community rules for victim support in the EU.
I would like to conclude by expressing my thanks to Mrs Angelilli, firstly for her excellent report, but also for her willingness to support the many compromise amendments which crossed group boundaries."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples