Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-10-25-Speech-4-155"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071025.24.4-155"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
If ever there was a sensitive subject, it is surely the mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters. The fact is that criminal law in Europe today is not standard – indeed far from it. Different countries have not only different legal traditions and values but also different criminal laws. The Member States’ criminal law systems reflect their respective identities.
Examples of disparity in criminal law at national level are many and varied. For example, the protection of freedom of expression and the definition of what constitutes a violation of freedom of expression differ markedly from one country to another. It would therefore be very dangerous to insist that a penalty handed down in one country should automatically be applied in another: dangerous not only for those who come before the law, but also for the rule of law generally.
So we need to tread very warily indeed here, because it is currently impossible to ensure the application of certain common basic standards in the law of criminal procedure. I am thinking particularly of respect for the principle of double jeopardy, of the right to a genuine, rather than a merely formal, defence and, indeed, of victims’ rights.
There are two fundamental principles that must always be followed and observed – otherwise the rule of law will cease to exist. They are the principles of legality and legal certainty."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples