Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-04-19-Speech-4-438-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-04-19"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"hu"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20120419.18.4-438-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-04-19-Speech-4-439-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Kinga Göncz2
lpv:spokenAs	member; S&D (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 vice-chair; LIBE (2012-01-23--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Magyar Szocialista Párt (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation for relations with Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 substitute; EMPL (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 substitute; PETI (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, the question has been raised what the added value of the EU’s accession to the Convention is. I would like to make it clear that this represents a new option of legal remedy for those European citizens who can also take their complaints related to violations of fundamental rights within the EU before the Strasbourg Court, so there is added value. Or more precisely, they could take them before the Court if it were not for some Member States obstructing this accession. We have heard in this debate which countries these are, and which one is foremost among them. This gives just as much cause for concern as some of the proposals regarding the reform of the Strasbourg Court that have been put forward at the Brighton Conference taking place right now. These include the new admissibility criterion, according to which a case would not be admissible to the Court of Human Rights if it has already been investigated by a Member State court. This would severely hamper the enforcement of human rights and the right of access to legal remedy, in particular for the citizens of countries where the judiciary cannot be considered independent. We would like to see guarantees that easing the excessive workload of the Court of Human Rights will not be to the detriment of human rights guarantees. We are all aware of the excessive workload, but the solution should not be sought in the direction the Brighton Conference has taken. We hope that this decision will not be the final one. What we can support has indeed also been stated here today, namely the provision of sufficient funding for the Court of Human Rights. We must wait and see the effects of the reforms undertaken over the recent years, and we must improve the application of the Convention on Human Rights and the quality of legislation in the Member States. We must achieve the commitment of European governments to implementing the decisions of the Court of Human Rights. If we succeed in all this, then the excessive burden of the Strasbourg Court will surely ease, and it will continue to be able to fulfil its duty which we find so important."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph