Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-03-15-Speech-3-139"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060315.17.3-139"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
It is quite incomprehensible that the Hazan report, as adopted by a large majority in this House today, should testify to such enthusiasm for the European Arrest Warrant. What is most objectionable is that it recommends that the judge who is to execute the arrest warrant should ‘not be required to systematically examine its compatibility with fundamental rights’. In other respects, too, it is concerned to do away with control by judges. This decision takes Europe further down a wrong track of opposition to fundamental rights. If decisions, whether or not arrived at by courts, are to be mutually recognised in the absence of uniform standards, then fundamental rights in the European Union will lose out. The fact is that the accused risk being mangled in the machinery of the quite totally different criminal law systems that exist in the European Union.
There is not the least hint in this report of the fact that individual states' – such as Germany’s – attempts to incorporate the European Arrest Warrant into their laws have been rejected by their constitutional courts on the grounds of their plain unconstitutionality. Despite that, the Member States are still being urged to ‘act without delay to take the measures needed to remove constitutional or legal obstacles to the application of the European Arrest Warrant to their own citizens.’ That means no more and no less than that the German legislators are being called upon to violate their own constitution in order to make it possible for the European Arrest Warrant to be enforced."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples