Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-03-14-Speech-2-213"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-03-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Evaluation of the European arrest warrant (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060314.25.2-213"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-03-14-Speech-2-2142
lpv:speaker	lp:Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 substitute; BUDG (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 unknown; GroenLinks (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; LIBE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the United States (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member; Temporary Committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners (2006-01-19--2007-02-14)3 member; G/EFA (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, it is beyond dispute that the European arrest warrant is already paying off in many ways, but while it makes the extradition system more efficient, considerably quicker and also less arbitrary, it still has flaws. At the time, my group was opposed to its introduction, because it was not accompanied by agreements on minimum standards in criminal proceedings. What has now been done relates only to the tracing of suspects, without putting the necessary guarantees in place for their rights. This may have the appearance of decisive action and being tough on crime, but it is at the same time an obstacle to cooperation in the area of extradition. Three years after the arrest warrant was adopted, the situation remains unchanged. The framework decision for procedural rights of suspects has not yet been adopted by the Council. I would join Mr Watson in his appeal to the Council to clarify which Member States are opposed to an improvement in the rights of suspects and for what reason. Indeed, what being said, also by Mr Demetriou, is that whilst all Member States must adhere to the rights of suspects and the human rights convention, there are also a huge number of legal cases running in Strasbourg. Equally, there are very many differences between the Member States, particularly in relation to those procedures. If we were all agreed on the rights of suspects, then the signing of this agreement on procedural rights would, of course, be a mere formality, but that is not the case, because there are many major differences which result in national courts now trying to figure out the conditions under which people are allowed to be extradited. This means that in a number of legal cases, people have not been extradited to other EU Member States. One example of this was a legal case in Bolzano where the local court refused to hand over an Italian to Austria. Once we have common agreements on the rights of suspects, suspects will also be surrendered much more easily. I would therefore ask the Council not to consider this to be a bonus for the rights of suspects, but as a necessary component, namely that repression and tracing go hand in hand, while at the same time guaranteeing the rule of law, even at European level. After all, the lack of mutual trust between the Member States will also adversely affect the tracing aspect."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"is"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph