Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-14-Speech-3-114"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030514.4.3-114"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, do the various European Member States have sufficient trust in each other’s legal systems? That was the essence of the discussion on the European arrest warrant. If the Council is to have its way such trust will have to be placed blindly in a third country outside the borders of the European Union, namely the United States. In my view this is, for the present, a bridge too far. First, a critical and public debate on this matter is required. After all, we are dealing here with fundamental human rights, personal freedom of movement and the preservation of personal safety and property. It is surely unacceptable simply to try to force citizens and their elected representatives to swallow important amendments to those rights whether they like it or not.
First as regards the extradition treaty. The norm for extradition between the US and the EU Member States is to be that an offence should carry a minimum sentence of 1 year’s imprisonment. For some Member States that already have a bilateral extradition treaty with the US this is nothing new. But conspiracy, participation and an attempt to commit an offence will also require compulsory extradition and that is definitely far-reaching. But for Member States without a bilateral extradition treaty and for Member States that operate a so-called positive list there will be a sweeping change. My question to the representative of the Council is therefore whether we can be given a list of the various consequences of the implementation of the treaty for individual Member States.
As is generally known, the rights of suspects are not generally adequately protected in the United States. The European Union must guarantee the civil rights of its residents, in this case those of suspects and convicted persons. I doubt whether the Union will be able still to do so when this treaty is implemented. It should be possible, at the very least, to demand that the treaty refer to the ECHR and that EU Member States should not be permitted to depart from it in implementing this treaty. That is why the escape clause on the problem of the death penalty is totally inadequate. It is not sufficient that EU countries should be able to refuse extradition, if there is a threat that the death penalty will be imposed, no, they should be bound to refuse. Better still, Member States must include a provision in the treaty giving them the option of trying cases themselves if extradition to the US is refused. In that case EU citizens would at least be assured of an adequate legal process with guarantees secured within Europe for the trial.
The treaty on judicial cooperation in the criminal field raises the question of the judicial and political responsibility for the consequences: the detection teams. Is
about to arrive in Europe? Experience has taught us that the US has far less rigid views than our own on the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. Who is to sound the alarm if in the future we are confronted with American agents who introduce a system of logging off?
Other Members of this House have already pointed out that data protection is not adequate. In conclusion, I should like to warmly support what was said by the chairman of our committee, namely that he finds it unacceptable that the Council should yet again refuse to consult Parliament. We simply cannot accept this any longer and to be quite honest, I fail to understand how the Greek Presidency dares to continue the process by repeatedly making fools of this House. I find this nothing short of scandalous."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Miami Vice"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples