Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-05-21-Speech-1-126-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120521.18.1-126-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, criminal law is not just another topic to be discussed. Criminal penalties involve curtailment of the fundamental rights of suspects and convicted criminals. You have to tread carefully in an area like this. Of course, it is justified to curtail fundamental rights in certain circumstances, but there have to be good reasons for doing so, as enshrined in international instruments of human rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
By and large, there are two threats. First of all, there is us, the politicians. The media are paying more attention than in the past to striking crimes. Lawyers sometimes appear before the cameras more often than politicians, and even the Public Prosecutor and the judiciary nowadays make use of an army of advisors. Politicians tend to zero in on this by promulgating new laws that either expand the scope of criminal offences or establish new ones, or else introduce tougher punishments. If they can then also manage to convince other European politicians that such legislation should be introduced all over Europe, they believe they have provided a successful response. Things should not be that way, however.
Criminal law is not suited to recording minor successes in the short term. Before agreeing new definitions for offences or increasing punishments, you need to have thought through the consequences properly. Does this actually result in more criminals being imprisoned and re-socialised, and is public opinion still interested in these tougher punishments in the longer term, or is what we are dealing with here an occasional shock to society that could just as well have been dealt with through better enforcement of existing laws?
The second threat, sadly, comes from Brussels. We have become accustomed to making liberal use of the competences given to the EU by a series of treaties. The Treaty lists a number of crimes where minimum harmonisation is self-evident. In addition, the EU may also push through minimum harmonisation of crimes where necessary for the implementation of harmonised EU policy. This actually provides an awful lot of elbow room and the truth is I could put forward a reason to regulate at European level for each and every crime.
The same Treaty also emphasises respect for national traditions and cultural differences, which are exactly what come to the fore in relation to criminal law. The emergency brake procedure, which is a special feature of criminal law that enables a Member State to resist harmonisation that would be contrary to a fundamental principle in its constitution, is the procedural consequence of this.
There is a tension between these two elements, the generous competences and the restraint and the respect for national traditions. That is why we cannot take the same path in relation to criminal law as in other spheres: namely harmonising here and there, bit by bit, on an uncoordinated basis, without being able to cite very clear, convincing reasons for doing so.
In my report, it has now been made clear that, in the field of criminal law, the politics of symbolism is to be avoided; there must be no political hype. Before you move to harmonisation, you first have to go through an assessment framework that proves the added value of harmonisation statistically and also makes clear that there are no other less intrusive solutions available without resorting to criminal law. In addition, human rights remain a crucial factor and there needs to be constant and explicit assessment in this regard also.
It is just as important to monitor consistency and coherence. All EU bodies will have to put special measures in place in this regard, including the European Parliament. The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs has no right of coordination, but disjointed criminal law is poor criminal law.
I would like to thank all the Members of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs for their overwhelming support for this report. I hope that we will be able to further flesh out these rules together with the Commission and the Council in an interinstitutional working group. I am confident that, together, we will succeed in ensuring that future rules concerning criminal law will only be introduced where truly necessary and that, furthermore, such new rules will be of high quality."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples