Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-06-13-Speech-2-299"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060613.28.2-299"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, even in his absence, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his report, although I do have to say that we in the committee would very much have preferred it if there had been some sort of negotiation between the groups to spare us the necessity of settling our various differences of opinion here in the plenary. I would also like to have seen greater account taken of the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, which has been considering this matter with us.
The consequence of that has been that we have had to table a relatively large number of amendments for the plenary. I hope that we will achieve a very broad majority when we come to the vote. This issue is of great importance for the further development of Community law, and I think that calls for a broad majority.
Where, now, are the differences of opinion? The rapporteur, in his original report, proposed a relatively restrictive approach in handling this ruling from the Court of Justice, but we, on the contrary, favour the Commission’s interpretation, according to which the Court’s ruling allows us to impose criminal sanctions in every area of Community law, albeit not subject to limitations, but with the conditions set down by the Court, and with the ultimate purpose of enforcing Community law.
We on the Committee on Legal Affairs find ourselves dealing, time and time again, with issues around the application of European law, and we have to say that there are serious deficiencies in this area. We should not, at a stroke and once and for all, deny ourselves an option that the European Court of Justice has put in our hands.
We do understand that there are particular concerns about the coherence of criminal law in the Member States, and these are voiced particularly by the Ministers of the Interior and of Justice, who do not want ministers with first-pillar remits, so to speak, ruining their national criminal law systems; we have accommodated these concerns by means of amendments, particularly those adopted by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.
As Mr Lehne has already said, we are largely agreed among ourselves on the need for a case-by-case examination of all legal acts, which are in need of renovation. We in this House have submitted one other, on which the deadline had not yet been reached, to the ECJ. If a new legal basis demands the codecision procedure, then this House will not be able to evade the necessity of using all its legislative prerogatives. We will not be able to accept a prior interinstitutional agreement in which we sign away our right to play a part in shaping these new legal acts, but that should not be taken to mean that we will not strive for good cooperation with the Commission and the Council if revision measures prove to be necessary."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples