Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-01-Speech-1-095"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030901.7.1-095"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the Commission wishes first of all to acknowledge the high quality of Mr Koukiadis's report, which constitutes a valuable working document on the sensitive relationship between criminal sanctions and Community law. Furthermore, this report has the merit of being the first institutional document to give a complete overview of this problem which, admittedly, is nothing new. The Commission services are moreover keen to approach it through various different working documents when each, or almost each, of the proposals mentioned in Mr Koukiadis's report is tabled, in particular those on the protection of the Community's financial interests, the protection of the environment through criminal law, racism and xenophobia, subjects which had never before been dealt with as systematically outside the world of academia.
The second cause that I have to be glad on the Commission's behalf is the fact that, reading the report, I see that many of the views expressed in it overlap with the position held by the Commission. Like Mr Koukiadis, the Commission does not consider the Community to have a general competence in criminal matters as the treaties currently stand.
On the other hand, the Commission believes that the functional competences that it has for the purposes of meeting the objectives set out in Article 2 of the EC Treaty do make the Community competent to impose an obligation on the Member States to lay down sanctions, and if need be criminal sanctions, if this proves to be necessary to reach a Community objective. This approach is based, as Mr Koukiadis has noted, on the case law of the Court of Justice, according to which Article 10 of the Treaty – and I quote – 'requires the Member States to take all measures necessary to guarantee the application and effectiveness of Community law'.
Nevertheless, as the treaties currently stand, the harmonisation of Member States' criminal law can be governed only by the provisions of Title 6 of the Treaty on European Union. Moreover, this is the position that the Commission, supported by Parliament, is defending before the Court of Justice in the action disputing the legality of the framework decision on the protection of the environment through criminal law.
Finally, as I see it, Mr Koukiadis's report and, in particular, its conclusions have the enormous merit of illustrating perfectly the extent to which the interweaving of the policies in the first Community pillar and the courses of action that are said to come under the third pillar is a source of constant difficulty. Furthermore there is an inherent risk in this situation of blocking the decision-making process. The price that we pay to overcome these difficulties is to make artificial divisions between legislation that has the same purpose, which can often render the Union's activities largely incomprehensible to the public.
Furthermore, it is important that the European Parliament and the Court of Justice are recognised as playing an identical role to the one that they play in the first pillar; in this way our concern to be effective can go hand in hand with improving democratic and legal checks and measures. That is why the Commission welcomes the proposal to bring Title 6 of the Treaty on European Union within the Community system as such, as recommended by the Convention. The Commission will do its utmost to ensure that this major step forward survives the Intergovernmental Conference, which will be starting next month. I know that in this regard Parliament is entirely in agreement with the Commission."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples