Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-17-Speech-4-030"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000217.3.4-030"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in letters dated 3 August 1999 and 3 December 1999, the Council called on the European Parliament, pursuant to Article 39 of the Treaty, to deliver its opinion on a draft convention between the Member States aimed at guaranteeing improved mutual assistance in criminal matters.
It is thus, as you can see, a very important draft, that will effectively serve to provide the Member States of the Union with a more comprehensive and consistent instrument for mutual assistance.
In actual fact, there are still certain differences of opinion within the Council over the type of convention, and over certain provisions contained therein. Some of these differences have already been ironed out, but others persist.
The spirit of the proposal is nevertheless to equip those responsible for applying the law – primarily the judiciary, but also the citizens concerned – with a valid operational instrument to fight crime, which respects fundamental guarantees as regards defence and general principles of human rights.
It is for this reason that, despite the many omissions in the text, the provisions set out therein could – and I say could, Mr President – be accepted on condition that they are suitably amended in order to ensure they can be implemented by those responsible for applying the law and are acceptable to the citizens. The Commission has proposed various amendments to this end, all of which aim to systematically restructure the Council proposal by suggesting a series of technical adjustments that will render the text harmonious and consistent as regards the amendments proposed. The amendments can be summarised as follows: they place greater emphasis on fundamental rights of defence, introduce a range of technical modifications needed to make a whole series of obscure and inconsistent passages more comprehensible, and delete the section relating to the remote interception of telecommunications, an area which still requires not only increased technical awareness but also acceptance on the part of the governments of the various Member States of the Union.
The proposal, as formulated by the Council and subsequently amended by the Commission, provides for a convention based on three titles: the first lays down guidelines for ensuring the consistency of procedures and formalities for letters rogatory; the second lists a whole series of specific requests for mutual assistance and defines the formalities and procedures which must be followed in relation to these specific types of mutual assistance; the third and last provides for and codifies the procedures via which telephone conversations conducted by citizens in a State other than the one instigating proceedings can and must be intercepted.
Mr President, international cooperation is certainly needed in order to tackle both cross-border crime and crimes which are committed in one State, but the evidence for which is to be found in another. It is nevertheless necessary to reach agreement as soon as possible on a new convention which will also take other, even more delicate issues into account: the whole issue of double jeopardy, that of specialities, and that of the credibility of one Member State of the Union in respect of the judicial authorities of other Member States of the Union.
These are thus extremely important questions, which we hope that the Council will see fit to take up when formulating a new opinion.
As regards other aspects of this subject, Mr President, I would refer you to my written report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples