Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-10-12-Speech-4-008"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061012.3.4-008"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I believe that today marks an important stage in the assessment of a provision that is highly important both for the Commission and for Parliament. The initiative in question, which, first of all, was adopted in accordance with the formal rules of a procedure that excludes codecision, has subsequently been carried forward politically through an extremely close collaboration with Parliament. The trialogue method, which has enabled us to come to an agreement on many occasions, is, in fact, a political solution: even though, from an institutional and legal point of view, we are sadly not in the presence of a formal codecision procedure, this political solution has enabled us thus far to develop an excellent working relationship.
To conclude, I hope that, thanks to a compromise solution, the Council will accept a text which, even though it has not been formally codecided, may represent the joint efforts of Parliament, the Council and the Commission. This could perhaps be the first case, ladies and gentlemen, in which a shared political will has led us to waive rules that do not admit of the formal codecision procedure, and we have in fact reached a joint decision by political means. Aside from the agency, which will undoubtedly have a more solid foundation on which to develop if it has this result behind it, what we are discussing here might also serve as a good example for many other sectors to which the codecision procedure has unfortunately not yet been applied.
I should like to thank the rapporteurs, Mrs Gál and Mrs Kósáné Kovács, for their useful collaboration. We have come to an agreement on many points, and I hope, too, that the few outstanding points can also be resolved by the end of the year so that, in 2007 – as has often been repeated by the European Council and Parliament, and as the Commission itself hopes – the Fundamental Rights Agency will at last become operational.
What points still need to be considered and developed further, even after the last trialogue, which was nonetheless extremely useful? There are three basic issues, which were among the items I recently addressed with the Ministers of Home Affairs at the Council meeting held last week in Luxembourg, and recently in a meeting with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.
The first issue specifically concerns the relations between the future agency and the Council of Europe. The Commission, myself and – I am sure – the European Parliament itself intend to prevent any overlapping of powers between the future agency and the Council of Europe, which already does a fine job of protecting and promoting fundamental rights. I believe that it is possible to pursue the common objective of establishing a working relationship between the agency, on the one hand, and the Council of Europe, on the other, with each one working within its own areas of responsibility.
The agency's primary task is to oversee, monitor and gather together material regarding compliance with Community legislation, without going beyond this remit. The first point is therefore one of ensuring that the Council of Europe’s powers are respected in full and that there is a willingness to cooperate. The second point relates to the geographical scope of the Agency’s powers and responsibilities. You will all recall that the original position limited the geographical scope solely to the EU Member States. Obviously, the need soon arose to extend the scope of the responsibilities to candidate countries, countries that are already, albeit to varying degrees, on course to join the European Union.
There was also the serious problem of countries at the pre-accession stage, which we call potential candidate countries. This is an extremely important concept, because it refers to a key geographical area for Europe: the Western Balkans. These are countries that are negotiating, in some cases, or applying, in others, stabilisation and association agreements with the European Union, which involve among other things extremely sensitive material relating to the protection of fundamental rights. Hence the proposal, which is supported by the Council and contained within the text being examined today, to extend the scope of application to these countries.
Some Member States have expressed reservations in this regard, and the Council of Europe has voiced strong concerns, which it is my duty to report. I believe, however, that it is possible to find a satisfactory compromise solution, which in no way rules out the prospect that these countries might also fall within the competence of the agency. Such a compromise solution would take account even of the fact that the agency in question, which will already be responsible for all of the current powers of the Vienna Centre – so, racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism – in addition to new powers, could best focus on the Member States of the European Union and on the candidate countries, at least to begin with. It is therefore advisable not to rule out the possibility that pre-accession countries might perhaps be taken into consideration, but account must be taken of the demands made, on the one side, by the Council of Europe, and, on the other, by some influential Member States that formally raised this issue at the Council meeting in Luxembourg. This is a point on which there is still room for reflection.
The third and final point relates to the inclusion of the so-called ‘third pillar’ topics: police and judicial cooperation. From the outset, the Commission – and I myself – have been in favour of the strategy – which this Parliament also considers to be the best – of including this topic in the remit of the agency in question. In my view, it would be rather difficult to have to explain to the people of Europe that we are close to establishing an agency with responsibility for promoting and protecting fundamental rights, and exclude from the scope of those powers the aspects of police cooperation and judicial activity, in relation to which there is an objective need to ensure that the fundamental rights of persons accused or on trial, for example, are respected in full. There is also, as you know, a problem of the legal basis, which I will obviously not focus on now, but there is a political reason for it. If this agency is to be of use to the citizens, then it somehow must include topics that come under the ‘third pillar’.
It is up to us to find an acceptable solution, but I do not believe that it should involve postponing the decision on whether to include the ‘third pillar’ topics until after the agency has been established. Postponing the decision would mean not making any decision at all, and I believe that that would be a mistake. As you know, within the Council, some large EU countries are demonstrating a certain reluctance to accept this inclusion, alleging internal constitutional problems. Personally, I believe that these problems can be overcome and that, precisely on this issue, Parliament can play a very important political role."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples