Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-05-06-Speech-3-357"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090506.39.3-357"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I wish, of course, to thank the three rapporteurs, and I will first of all turn to Mr Zwiefka and Mr Deprez. Obviously the Commission is glad that compromises have been reached. That said, it is correct that there have been intense negotiations since February and that we have thus reached an agreement at first reading on the two proposals presented by the Commission at the end of 2008.
You have rightly insisted on the development of training for the legal professions, of training in the European mechanisms, of relationships with the Court of Justice, of the use of instruments of mutual recognition, of legal cooperation and of comparative law. On this point, I fully agree with your report, as I believe that, in the Stockholm Programme, the training of judges and the exchange of judges among Member States will be the key to the future of this European area of law that we so want.
Obviously, the Justice Forum, which is a meeting place for the various networks of legal professionals, will also be used to play an essential role in raising practitioners’ awareness of the European dimension of their activities and, with the Union’s help, these practitioners will have to cooperate to ensure a true exchange of best practice.
The Commission also agrees with the report’s proposal – really, thank you – for an assessment mechanism which will not be restricted merely to the transposition of the Union’s instruments, but which will also cover more generally the state of justice in the Member States.
It will assess its effectiveness, its speed, and respect for guarantees of defence. On this issue, work has already begun with the idea, put forward by the justice minister of the Netherlands, of creating an assessment mechanism to measure how the judiciary is operating, in terms of respect for the principles of the rule of law, using, of course, the existing apparatus and bringing added value in terms of political monitoring. These assessments will allow recommendations to be made.
In addition, the Commission is in favour of increased European Parliament involvement in its assessment mechanisms. Mr Deprez, this would be an opportunity to include Parliament in the work of the expert groups that we will be putting in place this year and in coming years.
Next, you mentioned the transposition of the new Eurojust decision. Here too we agree with the approach suggested in the report, on the usefulness of an implementation plan and of meetings of experts with the Member States. It is thanks to these things that we will be able to implement the new Eurojust decision quickly.
Finally the report insists on the judicious use of new technologies. The European
justice strategy was launched to exploit the potential of information and communication technologies in the field of justice.
There you have it, I can only thank the European Parliament for its work and for the deliberations it has shared with us in this area. I am also convinced that, together, we will succeed in building this criminal justice area, this area of law which should characterise a community of citizens which quite rightly have the right to enjoy quality justice, in whichever Member State they find themselves.
This is a very sensitive area for all the institutions involved – Commission, Council, European Parliament – as Mr Deprez has highlighted so well. I thank all of the parties for having arrived at a text that seems to us to respect the Commission’s institutional prerogatives and, at the same time, seems to be a response to the legitimate expectations of the Member States and of Parliament.
I would, however, point out that this is an exceptional procedure, limited in scope and in time, and that the Community’s exclusive competence in the matters involved must, in any case, continue to be respected. I am very firm on this and I agree with what Mr Deprez said, when he pointed out that the Member States must not take advantage in this way of the situation to reclaim certain competences and to encourage the Commission to somehow abandon the idea of making proposals.
I believe that we are in full agreement on this matter. That said, it is also the case that this flexibility will allow the Member States to enjoy, where the Community does not exercise its competence, an institutional framework to help citizens gain access to justice in third countries, especially in the area of family rights. It is true, too – Mr Zwiefka and Mr Deprez alluded to this – that we must think about the rules relating to divorce, the custody of children, access rights and maintenance obligations, and about the painful situations that can arise for want of legislation that is universally applicable to these areas, at international level.
The proposal on the law applicable to contractual and non-contractual obligations could also have a positive effect on the resolution of very concrete, very specific problems, such as those related, for example, to road and river traffic, or the management of airports located at the borders of several States, such as the Basel-Mulhouse-Freiburg airport. That being said, this is another application of this institutional framework which must, once more, remain the exception.
I would like in any case to thank the rapporteurs from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs for the work they have achieved, and I also thank them for their understanding, which has allowed this agreement to be reached before the end of this Parliament’s term of office.
I will now mention the report by Mrs Pagano, with whose approach and content I am in agreement. I welcome Parliament’s growing involvement in the area of criminal justice, not merely as regards legislative action, but also as regards the design of the future of the European area of criminal justice.
Thank you, Mrs Pagano, for having given your support to the work we are doing at present, since we are preparing the Stockholm Programme and we will be publishing a communication containing recommendations for the period 2010 to 2014. I am delighted that your report fully supports the principle of mutual recognition. It is thanks to the principle of mutual recognition that the Union has achieved major successes, including the European arrest warrant, and all this is a blueprint for a true area of criminal justice.
The report also deals with the issues faced in implementing the principle of mutual recognition, and it is true that the transposition and the full and consistent application of the many existing instruments that are based on the principle of mutual recognition must be monitored. It is also true, though, that there can be no mutual recognition unless the mutual trust between Member States’ legal authorities increases. That really is the main ingredient of mutual recognition. I am therefore grateful to the European Parliament for advocating the creation of a truly common judicial culture, as you have just said, Mrs Pagano."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"e-"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples