Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-11-30-Speech-3-201"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051130.18.3-201"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I should like to begin by paying tribute to Mrs Roure and Mrs Buitenweg. As you are aware, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats was not keen for this debate to take place this evening. We feel it would have made more sense if, before anything else, the parliamentary committees concerned had carefully analysed the Commission communication on this judgment. Apart from that procedural difference, however, we are broadly in agreement.
I wish to congratulate Mr Frattini on his answers to the Chamber and on the Court’s decision, which addresses our concern to strengthen Community law and the first pillar, and the decisions that we can make in areas such as these under the scope of the first pillar, rather than the third.
It would therefore appear that the Court recognises that criminal law and the criminal justice system do not fall under the Community’s jurisdiction, but that this does not stop the Community legislature from adopting measures relating to criminal penalties in the Member States, provided that they are consistent and necessary in order to safeguard the efficacy of Community law. A useful precedent has been set. I feel that the Commission will make use of that precedent, and Mr Frattini can rest assured that Parliament, for its part, will also make use of it.
Mrs Roure talked of the impact that this agreement will have, not only on environmental issues, but in a number of other areas as well, including what we consider to be the most crucial area, namely that of fundamental freedoms when it is necessary to impose criminal penalties in order to ensure their effectiveness. One of the consequences to which you referred, Commissioner, is that some framework decisions were adopted on unsound legal grounds. The judgment mentions seven framework decisions, I believe. This situation must therefore be regularised by means of the quick and simple adoption of Community instruments to replace these framework decisions under the codecision procedure.
What I should like to ask you, Commissioner, is whether you can give us some indication of the timetable that the Commission will follow for presenting these initiatives, in order that, under the codecision procedure, we can quickly bypass the legal framework that is bypassed by the judgment."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples