Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-26-Speech-2-354"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060926.28.2-354"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the proposal for taking into account previous convictions in the European Union is part of the institutional regulations being promoted by the Commission within the framework of the implementation of the conclusions of the European Council in Tampere and I should like at this point to praise vice-president Commissioner Frattini on the efforts he is making to implement these conclusions of the European Council in Tampere.
The proposal is another step in the direction of the enlargement of judicial cooperation and the development of confidence between the Member States in the field of justice. It is another measure to promote the principle of the mutual recognition of civil and criminal judgments, which is considered to be the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in the Union.
The institution whereby account is taken of previous convictions needs to be introduced in order to combat crime more effectively, especially as the existing relevant European conventions of 1959 and 1970 have proven to be ineffective.
The proposal as formulated is confined to the regulation of issues of substantive law. The regulation of procedural issues has been left within the framework of the other proposal which is pending in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and is being processed by our honourable friend and rapporteur Díaz de Mera. That proposal is the other side of the same coin. With the proposal to be put to the vote, administrative convictions are excluded from the definition of a conviction, because in most Member States they are not recorded in the register of convictions and because there is no uniform definition as to what constitutes an administrative conviction. The assimilation of the importance and gravity of a conviction handed down by a court in another Member State with a conviction handed down in the Member State in which the new criminal proceedings are taking place is being promoted. Thus, in the event of a conviction for a crime which does not exist in the Member State trying the new case, the conviction is not taken into account. The proposal is free of the confusion and uncertainty which would exist if the provisions of the original proposal for the selective taking into account of previous convictions and offences had been adopted, but retains the obligation of the Member State not to take account of convictions handed down in another Member State where the principle of non bis in idem, limitation or amnesty are infringed.
We are of the opinion that, as the proposal to be put to the vote has been formulated, it adequately serves both the principle of mutual recognition of court judgments and the policy of gradual assimilation of the law.
It should be emphasised once again that the present measure, like other similar measures, is based on the principles of mutual recognition and confidence. However, it is important for the Council to proceed as quickly as possible with the approval of the drastic proposal for the minimum criteria in criminal proceedings, which was voted through many months ago by the European Parliament and will strengthen the above principles.
Why is the Council delaying on such an important issue?
Finally, I welcome the statement the other day by the Finnish Presidency about intensifying the drafting of legislation and the monitoring of the application of decisions relating to criminal matters. Let us hope that this statement will be put into practice."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples