Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-20-Speech-3-196"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-11-20"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20021120.3.3-196"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-11-20-Speech-3-1972
lpv:speaker	lp:Lennart Sacrédeus2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Kristdemokraterna (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; EMPL (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Ukraine and the EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committees and Delegation for relations with Belarus (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	". There are insufficient safeguards for legal rights in the proposal presented by Denmark. It is unacceptable that Member States would be able to confiscate property owned by the defendant or their family members, who have nothing to do with the criminal activity, if the convicted person cannot prove that this property was acquired by legitimate means. This involves something as revolutionary as reversing the burden of proof. The committee’s amendments are certainly good, as they are aimed at repudiating the reversed burden of proof, but this still does not clarify the situation sufficiently. A satisfactory legal text should clearly establish that only property deriving from proven criminal activity, or of equivalent value, can be seized. We Swedish Christian Democrats believe that the wording of the framework decision should be discussed further, so that no hasty restriction of legal rights occurs. Although I believe that harmonised EU legislation plays an important role in facilitating the fight against crime, from the point of view of legal rights I am forced to abstain on this matter."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph