Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-10-21-Speech-2-202"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081021.36.2-202"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
In addition to the fact that we have serious reservations about the analysis of certain aspects in the EP report, we disagree with the harmonisation of laws and the adoption of common procedures, particularly with regard to the European Evidence Warrant, an initiative which falls within the creation of a European criminal law enforcement area.
The European Commission has gained a reputation for presenting innumerable proposals on the supranationalisation of justice at EU level, thereby jeopardising core aspects of Member State sovereignty and their duty to protect their citizens’ rights.
In the current consultation process, the EP defends the cross-border collection of evidence, in the same way as the European Arrest Warrant operates. A majority of the EP wants to delete the ‘territoriality clause’ agreed by the Council (which would allow a Member State to refuse a European Evidence Warrant under certain conditions), thereby attacking Member State sovereignty.
In essence, the EP, which is ‘always more Catholic than the Pope’, wants to implement a proposed Treaty which has already been rejected three times, particularly in the area of justice and home affairs, thereby creating this ‘European criminal law enforcement area’ and, as the rapporteur says, ‘not [leaving] the door open to the exercising of national rights of veto’."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples