Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-05-06-Speech-3-358"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090506.39.3-358"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I welcome this opportunity to speak on these three important legislative proposals, and am grateful to the rapporteurs for the extensive work which has gone into their reports. I would like first to comment on the first two proposals, and then to turn to the third proposal on the issue of the further development of criminal justice within the EU.
I would like to conclude with a few comments on Parliament’s recommendation on the development of EU criminal justice, which is the subject of the report by Ms Pagano.
The Council very much agrees on the importance of mutual recognition as a cornerstone of judicial cooperation within the EU. We consider that it should both be broadened – by adopting other legal instruments in the future – and deepened, through a more effective implementation of the mutual recognition instruments adopted so far.
In this context, the Council would like to draw Parliament’s attention to the fact that it is in the process of finalising the fourth round of mutual evaluations on the practical implementation of the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between the Member States.
Within the context of this series of mutual evaluations, experts have also been studying the issues related to interaction between, on the one hand, the European arrest warrant, and, more generally, the principle of mutual recognition, and, on the other hand, the proportionality principle. However, the proportionality principle also has to be balanced with another principle, which is equally dear to Parliament – namely that of subsidiarity. The reality is that judicial authorities in various Member States have differing views on what constitutes a serious offence.
The Council looks forward to further work with Parliament and the Commission on the establishment of a system of horizontal and continuous evaluation and implementation of EU policies and legal instruments.
On the issue of judicial training, the Council shares Parliament’s opinion that there is a need to foster a genuine EU judicial culture by
promoting direct exchanges between judges, prosecutors and members of the judicial staff of different Member States, and to actively develop the European Judicial Training Network.
The Council also shares Parliament’s view on the need for a swift and effective implementation of the new Eurojust and Europol decisions.
By way of conclusion, I would like to thank Parliament for the extensive and detailed work which has gone into the three reports before us this afternoon.
The objective of the two proposals covered by the reports from Mr Zwiefka and Mr Deprez is to establish a procedure which will allow the Member States to negotiate and conclude agreements with third countries on aspects of judicial cooperation in civil matters falling within the exclusive competence of the Community.
The first proposal, subject to the codecision procedure, covers applicable law in contractual and non-contractual obligations. The second, subject to the consultation procedure, covers certain matters in the area of family law.
I would like to underline that the procedure put in place by the two future regulations is devised in such a way as to ensure the integrity of Community law. Before authorising the negotiation of an agreement, the Commission will check that the envisaged agreement does not render Community law ineffective or undermine the proper functioning of the system established by its rules. The Commission will also check that the envisaged agreement does not undermine external relations policy as decided by the Community.
It could in fact be argued that, by making it possible for Member States to negotiate and conclude agreements with third countries that are compatible with Community law, the range of operation of Community law is extended to countries outside the European Union.
The procedure established by the two proposals will apply primarily to the negotiation and conclusion of bilateral agreements between a Member State and third countries. It will in certain cases, however, also apply to the negotiation and conclusion of regional agreements between more than one Member State and/or more than one third country. As far as regional agreements are concerned, the procedure established by the proposal in the area of the family law will apply to the amendment or renegotiation of two already-existing conventions between the Nordic States. In the proposal in the area of applicable law, only a few regional arrangements will in fact fall within its scope. These could cover, for example, the operation of an airport situated in a border area, waterways common to two or more countries, or cross-border bridges and tunnels.
The procedure established in the two proposals is based on a high degree of trust and cooperation between the Member States and the Commission. A mechanism is provided to deal with those situations where the Commission, on the basis of its assessment, reaches the conclusion that the negotiation or conclusion of an agreement should not be authorised. In such situations, the Member State concerned and the Commission will enter into discussions with the aim of finding a solution together.
The Presidency, on behalf of the Council, hopes and expects that it will be possible to reach a first reading agreement on the proposal in the area of applicable law. Constructive negotiations have taken place between the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council, during which the three institutions have together managed to solve a number of difficult issues.
As the proposal in the area of applicable law is largely identical to the proposal in the area of family law, it goes without saying that the amendments made to the first proposal have been taken over in the second proposal, even though that proposal is not subject to the codecision procedure. It is, in the interest of good law-making, highly desirable to maintain parallelism between the two texts."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples