Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-06-13-Speech-2-297"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060613.28.2-297"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I too should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Gargani; Mr Lehne, who is standing in for him this evening; and Mr Cavada, for the joint work that the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on Legal Affairs have done on this important dossier.
I think that one of the qualities of this decision, which recognises the value added by the Community, is the fundamental role that the European Parliament will be able to play in important issues such as the application of criminal sanctions under the codecision procedure. As you know, the Commission adopted a communication on this subject last November. We believe that the scope of this decision goes beyond the single issue of environmental protection.
I believe, in fact, that there is a broader issue and I generally agree with the content of the Gargani report. I have to say that the Commission’s outlook is a little more ambitious in certain fields and in certain aspects. For example, the report specifically says that the legislator must restrict the application of criminal sanctions to cases where the protection of citizens’ rights and freedoms or the protection of financial interests is at stake. These are certainly extremely important interests that must be protected.
Nevertheless, we believe it would be possible to go a little further, although the Court’s decision places restrictions on the application of criminal sanctions at a European level, and I do believe such limits are necessary. For instance, as Mr Lehne said just now, we need to think about a European criminal sanction when it is truly indispensable for ensuring that Community law is effective, while respecting the principle of the need for the criminal sanction and the principle of proportionality.
At the same time, I think that an absolute limitation of the fields involved would be dangerous and would restrict what the Court of Justice has stated. We have put forward a proposal for a directive laying down criminal sanctions in the fight against counterfeiting. You are aware how dangerous counterfeiting is for industry in European countries and for consumer health, apart from causing the exploitation of child labour to produce fake goods. In view of that, how can anyone claim that sanctions at a European level are not needed in this area? This is just one example and, precisely because of that, I support the idea that Mrs Roure and Mr Cavada have expressed in their amendments regarding a rather more ambitious broadening of the structure adopted by the rapporteur.
To conclude, I should like to express my sincere gratitude because I have found in the report a restatement of the principle of the so-called ‘bridging clause’ – which is the possibility of moving from the principle of unanimity under the third pillar towards a codecision and qualified majority procedure, in other words a Community procedure under the first pillar – in the area of cooperation in criminal justice and cooperation in police and security matters. That is something that the Commission had already said that it was hoping for and I think it is a positive sign that it has been reiterated in the Gargani report as well."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples