Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-05-Speech-3-163"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031105.13.3-163"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin my speech by stressing the importance and significance of the recommendation we are debating today.
I believe that the approach which has been taken in drawing up the Green Paper is sensible, because it is still an undeniable reality that criminal jurisdiction is the central core of the sovereignty of the States, and is therefore very inflexible when it comes to establishing substantial common procedures and systems. And, although the idiosyncrasies of each European society and their own legal cultures must be seen as reasons for this resistance, it is also the case that the criminal process is a system which imposes limits on the State, which is a measure of the quality of that State in terms of the Rule of Law and respect for the citizen, something which this House, as the ultimate expression of its will, must always defend.
There is, therefore, no question that this is a timely proposal, something which cannot lead us to think that the instruments approved so far – such as the European arrest warrant – have meant any undermining of the fundamental rights and safeguards of our citizens, but which nevertheless does make it necessary for progress in this direction to be complemented by a degree of unification of procedural safeguards.
That aside, I must reject the two amendments presented by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and by the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, which are aimed at making the entry into force of the European arrest warrant conditional upon the entry into force of the framework decision on procedural safeguards. I reject these amendments because the scheduled date for the entry into force of the European arrest warrant is January 2004 and because the arrest warrant in itself is based on reciprocal trust between the different judicial systems of the Member States, even though it is essential that the implementation of the minimum standards imposed by the framework decision is carried out urgently and as soon as possible.
I just wanted to stress the most controversial point and the point which has given rise to the greatest discrepancies between certain political groups.
Finally, I do not want to miss this opportunity to thank the political groups for the practically unanimous support this report has received in committee and which I hope will be reproduced tomorrow.
What we are dealing with today is the first initiative, in the form of a Green Paper, aimed at considering, together with other instruments, the future proposal for a framework decision which will regulate – as its title states – the minimum rules on the procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union.
Judicial cooperation between the States of the European Union, in both the civil and the criminal fields, is reaching levels which were unimaginable a few years ago. These levels will reach their peak when, at the beginning of 2004, the European arrest warrant enters into force, if things go to plan and despite certain difficulties which appear to remain in certain Member States.
This is why, at the moment, when the construction of the European area of freedom, security and justice is making progress, and concern about terrorism, organised crime and illegal immigration is increasing, we are seeing greater cooperation between police and judicial bodies of the Member States and it is becoming essential that we do not continue to ignore the necessary safeguards which suspects and defendants must enjoy during the criminal proceedings so that their right to a fair and impartial trial is guaranteed at all times.
The purpose of the recommendations we are debating today is, therefore, simply to achieve a degree of unification of procedural practices in the Member States, on the basis of the rights established in the European Convention on Human Rights, the case-law of the Strasbourg Court and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and within the framework of the judicial and criminal convergence which today is being achieved in the European Union, based on mutual recognition, described as the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in the civil and criminal fields in the Union by the Tampere European Council.
It was at that same important European Council that the foundations were laid which have led us to be here today discussing the minimum procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings in the Union, since there was insistence there on the need to carry out work in relation to aspects of procedural law with regard to which it is considered necessary to have minimum common standards in order to facilitate the application of the principle of mutual recognition, respecting the fundamental legal principles of the Member States.
The Green Paper sets out the reasons why the proposals have been restricted to the five rights which appear in it: legal aid, translation and interpreting, information about rights, the protection of vulnerable suspects and defendants and consular assistance.
I wonder, Commissioner, Mr President, whether it would not have also been useful to have in some way considered the types of crime which affect all or the majority of States, which, to a certain extent, would have complemented the necessary unification of procedural practices.
The admissibility and weight of evidence, judgments in absentia and the regulation of bail are being left for a subsequent occasion
and I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Commissioner how that work is going – and these are issues which certain groups have been determined to include in the recommendation, despite the fact that that is not its purpose."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples