Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-03-Speech-4-112"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000203.2.4-112"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"We have serious reservations about the Council’s proposed amendments.
How can we talk of increasing the sphere of competence of the Court of First Instance when we know that we need to increase the number of judges in that Court because it is overstretched? The first measure would in fact cancel out the effects of the latter.
Some people will say that perfection is not a realistic aim, but a brief look at the background should make our reservations more understandable to them:
On 1 January 1995, the Council went back on the decision to increase the number of judges laid down in Article 17 of the Accession Treaty of 24 June 1994.
In May 1995, during the preparatory phase of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the CFI, concerned about the persistent increase in the volume of cases, was already insisting on the need to take measures ‘without which the Court would soon cease to be able to fully satisfy the principle of the proper administration of justice and to fulfil its assigned role … in conditions likely to compromise the protection of parties subject to trial.’
So what was done at Amsterdam? In that respect, nothing. On the contrary, extending the Community’s legal competence within the framework of the third pillar has increased the burden. You will agree, furthermore, that the texts adopted by this House always call for Community jurisdiction, and that includes for the Charter of Fundamental Rights which is currently being drawn up.
The increase in the number of CFI judges from 15 to 21 and the opportunity it has recently been accorded to have a single judge rule on specific casesare not real solutions but mere decoys, grudgingly granted, which we have become aware of after the fact.
Consequently, these proposals do not live up to the issues at stake. They represent a downward spiral which in the long term would require the number of judges to be increased to several hundred. We cannot agree to this, since such a sidelong shift towards a Europe of the Judges is detrimental to the proper exercise of democracy in our States.
The time has come, we feel, for in-depth consideration of how to put the Community system of jurisdiction in order and to guarantee a fitting quality of justice. This question cannot be dealt with separately from the current thinking on the hierarchy of norms and the better application of the principle of subsidiarity. Is the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference not the ideal opportunity for this?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples