Press release
Deepen EU cooperation on terrorism and justice, say MEPs and national MPs
Justice and home affairs - 10-10-2006 - 10:54
Calls for more joint EU action in counter-terrorism and justice matters were a common thread running through the final debates of the interparliamentary meeting on freedom, security and justice on Tuesday. MEPs, national MPs and judges were among those arguing for more use of qualified majority voting and codecision with Parliament as a way to make progress on home affairs issues.
Fighting terrorism while respecting fundamental rights
EU Counter Terrorism Coordinator Gijs de Vries stressed that Europe’s purpose in fighting terrorism is to defend its citizens’ liberties, chief among them their right to live. “In defending these rights,” he added, “we must also uphold the very principles we have pledged to defend”. We could only win the “hearts and minds” of Muslims, he said, if we respected common principles – among them the right to privacy and the respect for prisoners’ rights. “Suspects in the fight against terrorism are entitled to basic standards of treatment (…) under no circumstances can secret prisons be condoned in the fight against terrorism” – nor could torture, cruel or degrading treatment, or extraordinary renditions. Keeping to such principles, he said, is “fundamental in our fight against terrorism”.
“There is room for balancing” security concerns and protection of fundamental rights, said Martin Scheinin, UN Special Rapporteur on the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism. The question of proportionality, however, could not amount to secret or arbitrary detention. Efforts at fighting terrorism through such means “will fail, because they compromise the moral foundation of civilisation and of the state itself”.
According to Sandro Gozi, a member of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, in today’s Europe “we find ourselves confronted with an extremely complex situation, in which the most serious threat comes from populism, (…) which feeds on fear, widespread fear, and the growing demand for security from our citizens.” Speaking of the “absence of a common approach to human rights” – the EU approach to data protection being, as he saw it, one example – Mr Gozi argued that it was “necessary to enhance the role of the national parliaments which should be more closely involved in the drafting of counterterrorism strategies agreed at the European level.”
Political role for EU in tackling terrorism?
Jaime Mayor Oreja (EPP-ED, ES), supporting greater cooperation at the European level, argued that – when it comes to tackling terrorism – “we need a political role for the European Union”. At the same time, he argued, each separate strand of terrorism required a different political approach – whether we are talking about “totalitarian Islamic terrorism” or other types of terrorism: “If we don’t know who we are facing, we will end up with a crisis.”
Although it was only “tiny groups” within Islam which were giving rise to problems – said Peter Eckstein Kovacs, president of the Romanian Senate’s Legal Affairs Committee – “we should be concentrating on the religious dimension of terror”. Aydin Dumanoğlu, co-president of the EU-Turkey parliamentary commission, was of a different opinion. “It would be wrong to identify terrorism with any culture, religion or civilization”, he argued.
Frattini: "respond with the strength of democracy"
Closing the session, the EU Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security, Franco Frattini, said that in the face of the terrorist threat, “we need to respond with the strength of democracy”. Europe would have to learn to tackle “violent radicalisation and terrorist recruitment”; to prevent terrorists from taking advantage of the internet; to attack the roots of terrorism and the conditions which allow it to develop; and to reconcile a “serious” repatriation policy with the guarantee that no fundamental rights are violated.
Ten years after the Geneva Appeal: still a lot to be done, say judges
Earlier on Tuesday, five of the seven judges, who, ten years ago, launched the "Geneva Appeal" for the creation of a "European judicial area", joined the parliamentary meeting to debate the progress achieved since then. They all agreed on the need to give new impetus to cooperation among Member States on criminal justice matters, notably by bringing it into the normal Community decision making process.
Renaud Van Ruymbeke, a French magistrate, said: "criminals have no borders while judges are imprisoned in national borders". Bernard Bertosa, signatory of the Appeal, agreed: "We cannot see national borders as an obstacle to justice," he said.
Implementing the principle of mutual recognition
There was widespread agreement that to provide the EU with the tools to fight crime such as terrorism, financial crime, human trafficking and piracy, it is necessary to approximate national criminal legislation. According to Leena Luhtanen, Finnish Minister for Justice, "this requires a change of attitude in national governments to really implement the principle of mutual recognition", as agreed at the European Council of Tampere. According to this principle, once a judgement is made in one EU country, the decision should be recognised and implemented in any other Member State as quickly as possible.
According to Benoit Dejemeppe, a Belgian magistrate, "some progresses have been made" in this area, since the Appeal was launched. He said the European Arrest Warrant was the greatest breakthrough. The setting up of Eurojust could also be considered as a step forward. According to its President, Michael Kennedy, Eurojust, composed of one prosecutor for each Member State, is the right place to pool together magistrates from different countries dealing with a common case.
The "passerelle" clause
Nevertheless, speakers agreed that there is still a lot to be done. The European Evidence Warrant is still blocked in the Council and the discussions on a European Public Prosecutor have not been successful. The main reason behind this partial failure of the European judicial area was, according to Italian judge Edmondo Bruti Liberati, the requirement for unanimity at the Council. Many speakers called for the application of the so-called "passerelle" clause, to introduce the qualified majority voting in this area. Jacques-Yves Henckes, Member of the Luxembourg Parliament, asked for a vote in the EP to clearly state the need to apply the clause. Dimitrios Galamatis, a Greek MP, denounced a lack of political will and said: "we are all hiding behind our national pride."
As Commissioner Frattini put it later, although citizens “are calling upon Europe to respond quickly to these challenges (...) we are much slower than our citizens are asking us to be”. Because, in the Council, “a tiny minority are (...) preventing all the other states from taking a decision. (…) we do not have the necessary instruments” – qualified majority voting and a greater role for the European Parliament, among others – to “make us more credible, make us safer”.
04/10/2006
Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
Co-chair : Jean-Marie Cavada (ALDE, FR)
Co-chair : Jean-Marie Cavada (ALDE, FR)
Co-chair : Tuija Brax (Chair of the Committee on Legal Affairs of the Parliament of Finland)
Co-chair : Matti Väistö (Chair of the Committee on Internal Affairs of the Parliament of Finland)
Joint Parliamentary meeting: From Tampere to The Hague: Moving forward? Progress and shortcomings in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
REF.: 20061002IPR11236