Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-09-04-Speech-2-247"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070904.25.2-247"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, the European Court of Justice plays an important role in safeguarding the legality, implementation and application of third pillar instruments.
Under Article 35 of the Treaty, the Court has jurisdiction, upon request of a Member State’s court or tribunal, to give preliminary rulings on the validity or interpretation of framework decisions and decisions, on the interpretation of conventions established under Title VI of the Treaty, and on the validity and interpretation of the measures implementing them.
However, this jurisdiction only exists for those Member States which have declared that they accept the jurisdiction of the Court. Moreover, those Member States, having accepted the jurisdiction, may limit it to the highest national courts or tribunals. At this moment, unfortunately, only 16 Member States have accepted the jurisdiction of the European Court to give preliminary rulings on third pillar instruments, and two of them have made a limitative statement. This is really insufficient in my view and does not allow for appropriate dialogue between the Court and the national courts applying European law on a daily basis.
In addition, the European Court has jurisdiction to review the legality of framework decisions and decisions. Both Member States and the Commission may bring an action before the European Court to challenge the legality of these measures. In practice, the Commission has made use of this possibility twice. I refer to the cases regarding the request for annulment of the framework decision concerning the application of criminal law with respect to the protection of the environment and ship source pollution. But, in my view, these provisions also need improvement. In particular, the present Treaty does not provide for a mechanism similar to the infringement procedures for Community legislation, in order to monitor the implementation of the instruments in Member States’ legislation.
I have expressed my view on the gaps with respect to the jurisdiction of the Court in the area of freedom, security and justice in two communications I submitted to the Commission in 2006 and July 2007 on the implementation of the Hague programme. The Commission therefore welcomes the mandate agreed by the Member States for an intergovernmental conference to finalise details of a reformed treaty. Under the reformed treaty, I would expect the Court of Justice to become fully responsible in all justice, freedom and security areas. This is important to tackle poor national implementation of previously agreed work."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples