Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-18-Speech-1-145"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021118.8.1-145"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, everyone is aware of my group’s reservations about the Member State initiatives concerning the judicial European area.
The most effective and consistent method, in most of the matters that this involves, is the Community initiative, which we hope will be, following the work of the Convention, the prime working method, precisely because only the Commission is in a position to defend and promote the balance of values and principles that are not depleted by the construction of Europe’s security, which is drifting away from the Europeans’ deep-rooted component of rights and freedoms. The history of the construction of the area of freedom, security and justice is still made up much more of isolated initiatives by the Members States, which make specific contributions concerning security as they see fit, given the concerns of their citizens.
Instead, we are seeing the dissipation of Commission initiatives to approximate legislation, in which efforts to prosecute crime are tempered by the protection of individual values. This is not the Commission’s fault, but a result of differences between the various Member States. Furthermore, although there is no proof that the national area is the best suited to combating international organised crime, nor will it ever be proven that freedoms are best protected within the strict framework of national borders. Take for example the motives for requests for accession and the examples of Spain and Portugal, which quickly became part of the European framework, and consequently, stable and deep-seated democracies.
This initiative and this report by Mr Di Lello, which adopt similar mechanisms for the freezing of property and evidence that I myself covered in this Parliament and to which the Council has still not given its agreement, deserve a better fate than the one befalling my report.
Therefore, regardless of the method and some points of relative disagreement, we are voting in favour of this initiative and this report as a sign that Parliament is pursuing its efforts to support the Tampere Council and the Commission’s sensible and genuinely European interpretation of the promises made at the European Council.
Because, Madam President, the electors do not want crime to go unpunished, specifically international crime, for the sake of the judicial sovereignty of each Member State."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples