Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-01-19-Speech-2-189"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100119.9.2-189"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Thank you for this question. You know how much I value these procedural guarantees. It is true that, for many years, the Commission has been fighting to ensure that minimum common rules relating to the right of defence are genuinely applied in all criminal proceedings in Europe. This is necessary for judicial cooperation and it is a condition for the vital mutual confidence among the Member States. The Commission has worked tirelessly to ensure that European legislation is adopted in this area. Moreover, it is true that, thanks to the Swedish Presidency, the roadmap was adopted by the Council on 30 November 2009. This is a fundamental step in the creation of European legislation on minimum procedural rights. The Member States have, through this act, agreed on the scope of this legislation and on the need to adopt it as a matter of priority in full cooperation with the European Parliament. Like you, I have just listened to Mr López Garrido, who gave a very good explanation of how the Spanish Presidency also tended towards this will to adopt these initial measures, which will provide us with a range of minimum guarantees.
It is true that the roadmap’s step-by-step approach ultimately seemed to us to be a good solution. This approach will allow us to achieve our intended objective. The step-by-step approach means not only that a more thorough analysis can be made of each right in the context of the legislative proposal, but also that, in negotiations, each right can be examined individually. That allows us to avoid cross-sector bargaining, which sometimes characterises legislative texts that are too broad-based and can allow some Member States to hijack the negotiations in order to gain an advantage on a very specific point. So, Mrs Ludford, I am sure that the new Commission will work as quickly as possible to table all the legislative proposals provided for in the roadmap and to have them adopted at the earliest opportunity.
With regard to the right to interpretation and translation, which is the first provision of the roadmap, the Commission has noted the initiative presented by a number of Member States. This initiative, I must say, is based on the Commission’s proposal of July 2009 and on the negotiations held within the Council during the second half of 2009. However, it is true that the Member States’ initiative is not in full conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights, or with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.
The Commission’s old proposal, which made the interpretation of meetings between the accused and defence counsel compulsory, is not completely followed up by the Member States’ initiative, which limits this right to communications that take place in front of police authorities and during the trial. Moreover, the Commission’s old proposal provided for a right to translation, a more comprehensive right in the text of the Commission.
Of course, there will be work in this area between the European Parliament and the Council, and I think we will be able to obtain an ambitious text regarding procedural rights. This is essential if we want to create a truly European judicial area. We will also ensure that the text complies with the standards laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights and in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Therefore, I am sure that we will be able to count on Parliament to act on this matter and, once again, I note that the Spanish Presidency will also lend us its support."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples