Index 
 Previous 
 Next 
 Full text 
Procedure : 2010/0817(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Select a document: :

Texts tabled :

A7-0477/2013

Debates :

PV 26/02/2014 - 17
CRE 26/02/2014 - 17

Votes :

PV 27/02/2014 - 10.2

Texts adopted :

P7_TA(2014)0165

Debates
Wednesday, 26 February 2014 - Strasbourg Revised edition

17. European Investigation Order - European Arrest Warrant (debate)
Video of the speeches
PV
MPphoto
 

  Der Präsident. - Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die gemeinsame Aussprache über

– den Bericht von Nuno Melo im Namen des Ausschusses für bürgerliche Freiheiten, Justiz und Inneres über den Entwurf einer Richtlinie des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates über die Europäische Ermittlungsanordnung in Strafsachen (09288/2010[nbsp ]-[nbsp ]C7-0185/2010[nbsp ]-[nbsp ]2010/0817(COD)) (A7-0477/2013) und

– den Bericht mit Empfehlungen an die Kommission von Sarah Ludford im Namen des Ausschusses für bürgerliche Freiheiten, Justiz und Inneres zur Überprüfung des Europäischen Haftbefehls (2013/2109(INL)) (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A7-2014-0039&language=DE" \t "_blank" ).

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nuno Melo, relator. - Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, Colegas, queria dizer que a aprovação desta diretiva significará más notícias para quem comete crimes na União Europeia e um importante instrumento para quem investiga esses crimes no espaço comum. Schengen foi fundamental no nosso processo de construção europeu, mas facto é que a livre circulação de pessoas, bens, serviços e capitais também permite o cometimento de crimes com uma facilidade que antes não seria possível. E a diretiva permitirá, acompanhando a evolução dos tempos, um combate mais eficaz, desde logo nos crimes de base transfronteiriça e que causam grande alarme social – sejam crimes de terrorismo, homicídio, tráfico de droga, corrupção, redes de pedofilia, tráfico de pessoas, todos os crimes que possamos imaginar de base transfronteiriça.

Casos mediáticos como os de Madeleine McCann ou o Freeport, para dar dois exemplos que envolveram dois países – o meu país, Portugal, e a Inglaterra – teriam desde logo beneficiado desta diretiva pela menor complexidade administrativa e burocrática que assegurará.

Note-se que a diretiva não tem por efeito alterar a obrigação de respeitar os direitos e os princípios jurídicos fundamentais consagrados no artigo 6.º do Tratado da União Europeia. Mas a decisão europeia de investigação será uma decisão judicial ou validada por uma autoridade judicial de um Estado chamado de emissão para que sejam executados noutro ou noutros Estados-Membros, Estados de execução, várias medidas específicas para a obtenção de provas que serão realizadas ao abrigo do princípio do reconhecimento mútuo. Medidas de prova como a audição de testemunhas, buscas ou apreensões, recolhas de DNA, entregas vigiadas, informação sobre contas ou operações bancárias que, por seu lado, serão executadas nos Estados a quem essas medidas são solicitadas, a menos que motivos de recusa que estão especificamente tipificados na diretiva possam ser invocados.

Por seu lado, não menos relevante num Estado de direito, aos visados é também permitida defesa. É permitido que invoquem aquilo que possam dizer em sua vantagem, tal qual podem usar do direito de recurso. E toda esta simplificação administrativa e desburocratização por outra, este reforço do princípio do reconhecimento mútuo, a melhor articulação entre quem num espaço a 28, hoje, tem a difícil tarefa de investigar crimes, com um consenso fundamental que foi possível obter no Parlamento Europeu, em negociações muito difíceis, longas e complexas, com o Conselho e a Comissão, acabam por ser um resultado que, francamente, para já, me deixa muito satisfeito.

Razão pela qual, Sr. Presidente, nesta intervenção inicial, e caso não tenha tempo no final, eu gostava desde já de agradecer francamente a quem representou as diferentes presidências, desde a dinamarquesa à irlandesa, à cipriota, da Eslovénia ou da Grécia, a todos os relatores-sombra sem exceção, Crocetta e Josef Weidenholzer pelo S&D, Sarah Ludford pelo ALDE, Albrecht pelos Verdes, ECR, Sr. Timothy Kirkhope, e pelo GUE o Sr. de Jong, bem como àqueles que nos assistiram nesta tarefa, o Sr. Anze e o Sr. Pascal, desde logo no aspeto jurídico.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sarah Ludford, rapporteur. - Mr President, I believe that the adoption of my report on reform of the European Arrest Warrant will make an invaluable contribution to the European Union’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Like Mr Melo, I would like to thank my shadow rapporteurs very warmly for their tremendous support and good cooperation, leading to a high degree of consensus on what legislative and other changes are necessary in regard to the operation of the EAW.

All the political groups that participated in the shadows’ meetings are fully supporting the report, which I think is very powerful. We were also assisted by the European Added Value Unit in this House and the excellent research they commissioned from Professor Anne Weyembergh and Anand Doobay, whom I thank warmly for their assistance.

The EAW is a critical tool in helping law enforcement authorities to tackle increasingly complex cross-border crime and keeping our citizens safe in an open and free Europe. I supported it 12[nbsp ]years ago and I am glad I did so. Every year thousands of suspected and convicted criminals are returned through judicial processes to be tried or to serve their sentence much more quickly than under traditional, cumbersome and lengthy extradition, in which government ministers are involved. Justice delayed is justice denied to victims.

However, I think the EAW could be called the euro of the justice and home affairs world. It is a very good idea, but it was launched without the support and safeguards necessary to make it strong and sustainable, not least as MEPs were ignored in the legislation. So varying criminal justice standards and practices have led to legitimate criticisms that the operation of the EAW needs to be improved. I stress ‘legitimate’ criticisms, as opposed to illegitimate, purely ideological, ones.

While there have been some unilateral reforms at domestic level by some Member States, ad hoc and uncoordinated action is not optimum for smooth cross-border police cooperation and to enable practitioners, courts, prosecutors, lawyers and police to be clear about procedures and rights. Only reform at EU level would ensure the proper functioning of the EAW, guaranteeing effective and efficient justice, while ensuring respect for the fundamental rights of suspects and accused persons.

So this report calls upon the Commission to come forward, within one year, with legislative solutions that match our requests. If I am fortunate enough to be re-elected, I will be pressing the new prospective Commissioner for justice to deliver on this.

It is timely that we are debating the European Investigation Order (EIO) as well in this joint debate. Not only is it complementary to the European Arrest Warrant, but it is one that I think will help ease pressure on the EAW. It has had great precedent-setting value: firstly in the incorporation of a proportionality check so that the issuing authority has to consider whether the matter is really proportionate, based on all the relevant factors; and, secondly, in the human rights safeguard clause. My report proposes that both of these must be duplicated for the EAW.

We also proposed, which is not in the EIO, a consultation procedure so that the courts in the two countries can exchange information, hopefully to ensure that the EAW will not be misused as a fishing expedition to interview suspects and witnesses, as opposed to its intended purpose of criminal prosecution. I hope this would mean that trial readiness could be ascertained. Individuals should not be spending long periods in pre-trial detention waiting for the prosecution to prepare its case.

In providing for the transfer of evidence rather than persons, the EIO should take some of the pressure off the EAW and confine the latter to its proper use.

I will cover any other points in my summing up, but I am looking forward to a positive response from Vice-President Reding.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. - Mr[nbsp ]President, Members, firstly, on the Melo report: the Commission takes very good note of the agreement reached between Parliament and the Council on this initiative of Member States, introducing a European Investigation Order in criminal matters.

This Directive, if it is properly implemented and used, can be a good tool to fight cross-border crime and help to bring suspected criminals to justice. This Directive seeks to replace the EU Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance and the European Evidence Warrant framework decision. I just wish to underline that the latter was adopted by the Council in 2008, and implemented in two Member States only. The Commission hopes this time things will be different. It expects Member States to implement the Directive correctly and on time, so that it will not become a dead letter, as was the case with the European Evidence Warrant.

Recently the Commission published a report on the implementation of three pre-Lisbon framework decisions in the field of detention. These three EU laws focus on mutual recognition of sentences, pre-trial supervision orders and probation orders. The rules aim to improve mutual trust between judicial systems in Europe, and this mutual trust is essential in order for a common European area of justice to function.

Despite the implementation dates being long past, about half of the Member States have not transposed these framework decisions into their domestic law. The objective of developing an area of freedom, security and justice for all citizens, as laid down in Article[nbsp ]3 of the Treaty, can only be achieved if Member States do properly implement the instruments they have agreed upon.

I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr[nbsp ]Nuno Melo, and his shadow rapporteurs for their very good work. The Commission applauds their work in rebalancing this instrument, and in particular their strong advocacy for strengthening the fundamental rights safeguards it contains. This was very helpful and it once again highlights the importance of the European Parliament in the co-decision procedure.

On the report by Sarah Ludford: at a recent debate in this chamber, and on numerous other occasions, I have strongly defended the right of European citizens to freedom of movement within the EU. But open borders do not mean that criminals can evade justice simply by travelling to another Member State. That is why we have the European Arrest Warrant – in effect since 2004. It is an efficient tool for surrendering people suspected of an offence from one EU country to another. It makes sure that neither suspects nor convicted criminals can hide in the European Area of Justice.

We have many examples: dozens of suspected drug smugglers, murderers and child-sex offenders, for instance, have been brought back to the UK from Spain in very short time[nbsp ]spans, and this would not have been possible before the European Arrest Warrant. Likewise, thanks to the European Arrest Warrant, many suspected terrorists are now answering for their alleged crimes in the jurisdictions where they were wanted. The European Arrest Warrant is a very successful criminal justice instrument.

That does not mean, however, that it is perfect or that these operations cannot be improved. The Commission has said – and I recall the 2011 implementation report – that there is room for improvement, for instance, in order to avoid the use of the European Arrest Warrant for crimes that are not very serious, and paying due regard to fundamental rights.

In this context, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Ms[nbsp ]Ludford, and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) for the work they have done and the expertise that has gone into this report. We will closely consider the issues raised in the report, which will feed into the permanent ongoing work on improving the European Arrest Warrant system.

We are already in the process of addressing some of the issues raised by the report. For instance, on the issues around fundamental rights, the Commission has worked to strengthen the rights of defendants. The now agreed directives on the right to interpretation and translation, on the right to information about rights, and on the right of access to a lawyer, constitute minimum standards throughout the EU.

I only regret that some Member States do not want to participate in this system of minimum rights throughout the EU, because these rights represent a counterbalance to the important tool of the European Arrest Warrant. For instance, persons subject to an Arrest Warrant will have a lawyer in both the issuing and the executing Member State. If you do not apply the rules, then of course the people who are taken on a European Arrest Warrant will not have that right. That is why I regret very much that some Member States do not want to participate in implementing these fundamental rights.

The European Parliament has been a driving force and a key partner in delivering the three directives on procedural rights. I want to thank Parliament for that. I also welcome the start of the European Parliament’s work on the Commission’s recent proposals on legal aid, presumption of innocence, procedural rights for children and vulnerable suspects, which will also help to complete the procedural rights roadmap in the future and will be a good complement to the European Arrest Warrant. I would like to see all these instruments in place and being applied by all Member States and I wish to close any remaining gaps in the protection of fair-trial rights across Europe.

In your report, the European Arrest Warrant is correctly placed in the wider context of the mutual recognition instruments – the framework decisions dealing with the mutual recognition of sentences, probation orders and pre-trial supervision orders. As I said at the beginning, the Commission has adopted an implementation report in which we observed that these decisions have not been fully transposed by Member States. Against that background the Commission considers that a decision to re-open the European Arrest Warrant would be premature. Because, despite repeated calls by the Commission to Member States, the European Arrest Warrant has not yet received the benefit of full implementation of the complementary mutual-recognition instruments. Once the Commission has full infringement powers to act on the transposition and implementation of these instruments – and that will be the case from December this year – we will work towards full implementation. This will be the case in respect of instruments such as the European Supervision Order, which can help to reduce pre-trial detention in European Arrest Warrant cases.

In your report, you also request EU funding for training and networks for the European Arrest Warrant. That request is most welcome and is already being met in a number of projects. We will continue these efforts. We also share the report’s focus on the importance of reliable data. To that end the Commission has developed and agreed with Member States a new questionnaire seeking European Arrest Warrant data. Let me assure you that your valuable work will feed into our efforts on the common goal of improving the European Arrest Warrant system.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Carlos Coelho, em nome do Grupo PPE. – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Vice-Presidente Reding, caras e caros Colegas, falo hoje aqui em nome do PPE, em meu nome pessoal e no da Deputada Kinga Gál, que, por razões de força maior, teve de sair de Estrasburgo mais cedo.

Não conseguimos defender a democracia, não conseguimos definir o Estado de direito e não conseguimos falar da credibilidade da justiça sem uma justiça independente, equitativa, eficaz, imparcial, justa, e sobretudo que funcione dentro de prazos razoáveis. Medidas como o mandado de detenção europeu e a decisão europeia de investigação em matéria penal são instrumentos importantes para esse objetivo.

O combate eficaz contra a criminalidade transnacional requer mecanismos mais eficientes que possam garantir que a abertura das fronteiras não seja aproveitada por quem procura fugir à justiça.

Para muitos de nós, a implementação do mandado de detenção europeu contribuiu de forma significativa para tornar mais céleres os processos de entrega na União e constituir, assim, o pilar do reconhecimento mútuo de decisões judiciais em matéria penal. Reconhecemos, porém, que ainda tem sido alvo de inúmeras críticas e continua sujeito a enormes desafios, agravados pela natureza incompleta e desequilibrada do espaço de justiça penal da União.

As lacunas a nível legislativo têm gerado interferências desproporcionadas nos direitos fundamentais dos suspeitos e acusados, conduzindo a práticas inconsistentes nos Estados-Membros no que diz respeito às garantias legais e à proteção contra as violações dos direitos fundamentais, causando incerteza e comprometendo a confiança mútua. São exemplos a não inclusão explícita de garantias dos direitos fundamentais ou a verificação da proporcionalidade, aliadas a uma implementação incompleta e inconsistente da lei europeia.

Cumprimento a relatora Sarah Ludford e apoio as suas propostas para a definição de normas mínimas em matéria de direitos processuais dos suspeitos e acusados, bem como de uma medida transversal que permita definir princípios aplicáveis a todos os instrumentos de reconhecimento mútuo, de forma a assegurar um maior equilíbrio no espaço de justiça penal da União Europeia.

E saúdo, na Baronesa Ludford, o exemplo de uma deputada que nunca cessou de fazer um combate meritório pelos direitos humanos. Faço votos de que ela sirva de exemplo no seu país, um país que fez opt-out da Carta Europeia dos Direitos Fundamentais e da maior parte dos dispositivos do espaço de liberdade, segurança e justiça.

Aproveito igualmente para cumprimentar o relator da decisão europeia de investigação penal, o Deputado Nuno Melo. Felicito-o pelo excelente trabalho, que permitiu alcançar um acordo em primeira leitura, sobretudo se tivermos em linha de conta quão complexo e sensível se revelou todo o dossiê desde o início.

A decisão europeia de investigação terá assim um âmbito horizontal, aplicando-se a todas as medidas de investigação que visem recolher elementos de prova. Esta decisão deverá ser complementada com a adoção gradual do pacote dos direitos processuais, e fico contente que nos motivos de recusa tenha sido tido em conta o respeito dos direitos fundamentais e dos princípios ne bis in idem e da proporcionalidade.

Este novo instrumento global de obtenção de elementos de prova nos processos com dimensão transfronteiras, com base no princípio do reconhecimento mútuo, deverá permitir substituir o atual enquadramento para a recolha de elementos de prova, que é demasiado fragmentado e complexo.

Uma das razões do insucesso do antigo mecanismo foi já referida pela Vice-Presidente Reding. Foi a circunstância condenável de apenas dois Estados-Membros o terem implementado. Espero que agora a situação seja diferente e que exista um melhor controlo da falta de implementação da legislação comunitária por parte dos Estados-Membros.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Birgit Sippel, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Mit dem europäischen Haftbefehl sollen Verdächtige und Straftäter schneller von einem Mitgliedstaat in den anderen ausgeliefert und vor Gericht gestellt werden. Das ist gut und richtig!

Leider gab und gibt es bei der Anwendung dieses Instruments immer wieder Probleme. Nur ein Beispiel: 10 Monate Haft drohten einer 23-jährigen Mutter, die mithilfe des Europäischen Haftbefehls vom Vereinigten Königreich in ihr Heimatland Polen ausgeliefert werden sollte. Ihr Vergehen: Als 17-Jährige wurde sie wegen des Besitzes einer kleinen Menge Amphetamine für den Eigenbedarf zu einer zehnmonatigen Bewährungsstrafe verurteilt. Sie zog ins Vereinigte Königreich, absolvierte erfolgreich einen Entzug, fand eine Arbeitsstelle, bekam einen Sohn. Doch da sie den Umzug ihrem Bewährungshelfer nicht gemeldet hatte, wurde ein Haftbefehl ausgestellt. Das Kind wäre in die Fürsorge gekommen, die Frau hätte wahrscheinlich ihren Job verloren. Erst nach monatelangem Ringen ließen die Behörden von diesem Ansinnen ab. Dieser Fall veranschaulicht andeutungsweise, welche massiven Probleme sich teilweise, aber immer wieder aus der Anwendung des Haftbefehls ergeben.

Vertrauen in den Rechtsstaat erfordert eben beides: die Straftäter ermitteln und vor Gericht bringen und die vollständige Achtung der Verfahrensrechte von Beschuldigten. Deshalb fordern wir die Kommission auf, innerhalb eines Jahres einen Legislativvorschlag zur Reform des Haftbefehls vorzulegen. Nur einige Punkte: In jedem Einzelfall sollte etwa vor Ausstellung des Haftbefehls die Schwere des Verstoßes und die Möglichkeit einer weniger einschneidenden Alternative sorgfältig geprüft werden. Wenn ein Staat stichhaltige Gründe für die Annahme hat, dass der Haftbefehl europäischen Grundrechten widerspricht, muss er die Ausführung verweigern können. Und auch Betroffene selbst brauchen wirksame Einspruchsmöglichkeiten gegen die Auslieferung.

Aufgrund des massiven Eingriffs darf der Europäische Haftbefehl nicht bei geringen Vergehen zum Einsatz kommen. Wir brauchen bessere Definitionen der Straftatbestände, und das Recht auf ein faires Verfahren muss gewährleistet sein. EU-weite Mindeststandards wie das Recht auf Verdolmetschung und Übersetzung, auf Rechtsbeistand, auf Belehrung über die Rechte müssen auch beim Europäischen Haftbefehl gewährleistet sein. Fehler und Fehlurteile können dennoch geschehen, deshalb brauchen wir klare Entscheidungsregeln. Und auch bei der Untersuchungshaft besteht Verbesserungsbedarf.

Wir Sozialdemokraten stellen das Instrument des Europäischen Haftbefehls nicht in Frage. Aber so wie bisher kann es nicht weitergehen. Deshalb unterstützen wir voll und ganz den Initiativbericht unserer Kollegin Ludford. Die Kommission muss einen Legislativvorschlag machen, um die Probleme zu lösen. Und – ein letzter Satz – die Mitgliedstaaten müssen ebenfalls ihrer Verpflichtung nachkommen bei der Achtung von Grundrechten auch im Strafrechtsbereich.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Judith Sargentini, namens de Verts/ALE-Fractie. – De Groenen steunen het voorstel voor een Europees onderzoeksbevel. Het kan een alternatief vormen voor het Europees aanhoudingsbevel, als iemand eigenlijk gezocht wordt voor verhoor en niet voor veroordeling. Want bij de zoektocht naar bewijsmateriaal in een strafzaak moet de minst ingrijpende middelen gebruik worden gemaakt.

Het Europees onderzoeksbevel is niet simpelweg gebaseerd op onderling vertrouwen. De Groenen hechten aan de proportionaliteitstest die is toegevoegd en de uitzondering die kan worden gemaakt als grondrechten in het geding zijn. Want vertrouwen is goed, maar controle is beter en goed voorbeeld doet goed volgen. Die twee gronden waarop de ontvangende partij het uitvoeren van het onderzoeksbevel mag weigeren moeten wat ons betreft ook worden toegevoegd aan het Europees aanhoudingsbevel. De onmogelijkheid om het aanhoudingsbevel naast zich neer te leggen heeft de afgelopen jaren tot onnoemelijk leed geleid bij Europese burgers die op basis van slordige bewijsvoering naar een ander land werden overgebracht en daar wegkwijnden in langdurig voorarrest onder verschrikkelijke omstandigheden.

Ik heb dit keer op keer aanhangig gemaakt bij de Commissie en de Raad en kreeg als respons: dit is bijkomende schade. Bijkomende schade? Vertel je dat aan een man of een vrouw die onterecht gevangenzit en zijn baan, huis en relatie ziet verdwijnen? Dat commissaris Reding nu in haar bijdrage al zegt dat zij de veranderingen liever op de lange baan wil schuiven, laat zien dat zij de ernst van de situatie niet inziet. Het aanhoudingsbevel werkt nu tien jaar zonder proportionaliteitstoets en zonder zich rekenschap te geven van de inhumane situatie in gevangenissen in sommige landen.

Wij zouden willen dat de rechtsstaat in ieder land even goed werkt, maar dat is momenteel niet het geval en daarom is onderling vertrouwen niet de juiste basis voor justitiële samenwerking. Want zoals ik zei, vertrouwen is goed, maar controle is beter.

Ik ben daarom blij met het verslag van collega Ludford die de eis op tafel legt dat het aanhoudingsbevel moet worden aangepast. Ik verwacht dat ook. Want opgepakt en uitgezet worden voor het plukken van papavers langs de kant van de weg of het niet op tijd indienen van een video bij de videotheek - en ik verzin dit niet - kan geen reden zijn. Mevrouw Reding, ik verwacht van u dat u de wens die wij hier neerleggen binnen een jaar inwilligt.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Timothy Kirkhope, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr[nbsp ]President, Commissioner, the European Arrest Warrant, like the European Investigation Order, is of great value in the fight against serious crime and terrorism. I congratulate Mr[nbsp ]Melo and Baroness Ludford on their work.

My country has benefitted from the use of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) on many occasions, securing the extradition of drug smugglers, child-sex offenders, rapists and terrorists. I remember when I was a Home Office Minister the extradition process used to be painfully difficult, plagued by political obstructions, and that is certainly not something I want to return to.

We live in a world where terrorism and cross-border crime hang over us in a very serious way every day. It is clear, in a modern world, that an effective and timely method of international cooperation on extradition is essential. But just as essential are the checks and balances and the proportionality that go along with it, and the need for proportionality is at the core of our debate. The EAW was not designed to leave a person to languish in a jail without an early trial. It was not intended to make an individual subject to years of inconvenience and questioning as the result of outdated requests. And it was not put in place to prosecute the most trivial petty crimes.

Whilst such instances are exceptions, rather than the rule, they are exceptions that cannot be tolerated. It is the duty of the Commission, this Parliament and Member State governments to restore confidence in the EAW through meaningful reform.

Like the rest of this House, I hope, I will fight for the highest standards of protection of the principle of a fair trial and for judicial proportionality checks. Criminals must have nowhere to hide in the EU, but a necessary ingredient of any fight against crime is the public’s continued faith and trust in the system.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nikola Vuljanić, u ime kluba GUE/NGL. – Gospodine predsjedniče, prije svega htio bih zahvaliti izvjestiteljima na odličnim, izbalansiranim i dobro argumentiranim izvješćima koja poboljšavaju ovaj, zapravo nezamjenjiv, instrument hvatanja koraka s prekograničnim kriminalom u Europi. Izvješća istovremeno otkrivaju neke nedostatke u funkcioniranju ovih sustava, a to radi i statistika.

U razdoblju od 2005. do 2009. godine izdano je primjerice 50 000 ovakvih naloga, a izvršeno 11 000, dakle jedna petina. Komisija i sama vidi da postoje mane sustava i treba predložiti poboljšanja. Upravo je Komisija zadužena za provedbu ovih propisa, pa je red da ona prva predloži poboljšanja. Siguran sam da je i pravni okvir ovih propisa pomalo nejasan, pa države članice često mogu postupati onako kako same smatraju da treba postupati. Ako se taj okvir bolje uredi, sasvim je sigurno da će i postotak izvršenja ovih naloga biti veći.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Gerard Batten, on behalf of the EFD Group. – We hear a lot about fundamental rights in this place. In England we had very good fundamental rights long before we joined the European Union. These were established over centuries under Habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights, the presumption of innocence, trial by jury, and guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt, to name just a few. These safeguards are now being destroyed by the creation of the EU’s own system of criminal justice.

The European Arrest Warrant has been the cause of numerous cases of gross injustice, and these will continue to grow. Now we have the European Investigation Order, which will empower foreign police forces to require British police forces to carry out investigations on their behalf, which we will then have the privilege of paying for.

The coalition government has the option to opt out of the existing 135 EU criminal justice measures. Instead it has announced its decision to opt out of 100 but opt in to 35. The 100 they are opting out of are of no consequence, being purely rhetorical, redundant or superseded by later legislation. The 35 measures they are opting in to are the worst and most dangerous, including the European Arrest Warrant.

None of this is necessary, because there are already existing mutual assistance measures in place that allow police forces and judicial systems to cooperate with each other across national borders. This is not about cooperation. It is about harmonising our legal system in pursuit of the great ideological goal of a United States of Europe.

If David Cameron is serious about repatriating power from the EU, he has the golden opportunity to do so now. There is still time to change the decision and opt out of all these measures, thereby protecting the real interests and freedoms of the British people.

But I fear the Tories will do what they always do and sell their fellow countrymen down the river to the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). - Mr President, I fully support the European Investigation Order. What is it? It gives a Member State the possibility to ask another Member State to carry out investigation measures to resolve serious crime. To win our battle against human trafficking, child pornography, drug smuggling, terrorism or cybercrime and counterfeiting, we need to work closely together.

Criminality has become more and more complex, sophisticated and mobile. We should give better tools to law enforcement authorities to prosecute criminals, organised crime and criminal networks when they move cross-border. This is about recognising the action of other Member States and helping each other to carry out investigations. National competences in law enforcement are fully respected, and national criminal law will continue to apply.

The existing rules on police and judicial cooperation are simplified. It will be easier for our police and our prosecutors to operate efficiently. For instance, the introduction of clear time limits will speed up collection of crucial evidence from other Member States. It is also important that we introduce clear safeguards to protect the fundamental rights of suspects and clear rules on remedies.

Increased cooperation between Member States is essential to effectively fight cross-border crime. The European Investigation Order and the European Arrest Warrant are good examples of what we can do together at European level to really benefit our European citizens. With a European Investigation Order we increase the safety of our citizens, while at the same time respecting their integrity. This is an important step forward towards creating an area of freedom and security in Europe, as called for in the Stockholm Programme.

 
  
  

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. ROBERTA ANGELILLI
Vicepresidente

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D). - Frau Präsidentin! Mit der Europäischen Ermittlungsanordnung wird morgen ein sehr wichtiges Gesetz im Bereich der polizeilichen und justiziellen Zusammenarbeit verabschiedet. Es ist auch als ein wichtiger Schritt in Richtung der Umsetzung der Ziele des Stockholm-Programms zu verstehen. Bemerkenswert ist auch, dass die Initiative dazu einmal nicht von der Kommission, sondern von sieben Mitgliedstaaten, darunter auch Österreich, dem Staat, den ich hier im Europäischen Parlament vertrete, ausgegangen ist.

Dies zeigt einmal mehr, dass nationalstaatliche und europäische Interessen nicht in einem Gegensatz stehen. Dies hängt vor allem auch damit zusammen, dass auf diese Weise ein sicherheitspolitischer Mehrwert erzielt werden kann. Die Ermittlungsanordnung wird die grenzüberschreitende Strafverfolgung in Europa erheblich erleichtern und verbessern, da viele der derzeit bestehenden Hürden in der gegenseitigen Rechtshilfe beseitigt werden können. Die Ermittlungsanordnung führt den Automatismus zwischen EU-Ländern ein, der grenzüberschreitende Ermittlungen schneller und effektiver werden lässt. Wer sollte dagegen sein?

Der Wert eines solchen Instruments ist nicht zu unterschätzen, da es oft bürokratische Hürden waren, die polizeiliche Ermittlungen behindert oder erschwert haben. Das kann und darf nicht im Interesse der Bürgerinnen und Bürger sein, die ein Recht auf persönliche Sicherheit haben.

Gleichzeitig müssen wir uns aber auch bewusst sein, dass gerade der Bereich der Strafverfolgung und -ermittlung ein äußerst sensibler Bereich ist, und hier muss mit großer Sorgfalt darauf geachtet werden, dass die Grundrechte der Beschuldigten gewahrt bleiben. Der Schutz der Grundrechte und dessen Verankerung in den Gesetzestexten ist daher von grundsätzlicher Bedeutung. Ich bin sehr froh darüber, dass es uns in den Verhandlungen mit dem Rat gelungen ist, in Artikel[nbsp ]10 eine Grundrechteklausel einzuführen. Eine Ermittlungsanordnung darf nur dann erlassen werden, wenn die Grundrechte der betroffenen Person nach der EU-Grundrechtecharta und dem EU-Vertrag nicht beeinträchtigt werden. Zudem konnten wir in Artikel[nbsp ]5 und 10 auch sicherstellen, dass nur Maßnahmen zur Ermittlung angewendet werden können, die in dem jeweiligen Mitgliedstaat nach nationalstaatlichem Recht auch erlaubt wären.

Der Ermittlungsanordnung sind damit wichtige Grenzen gesetzt worden. Es ist wirklich ein gelungener Versuch, Missbräuche zu verhindern. Mit unseren Veränderungen an der Europäischen Ermittlungsanordnung zeigen wir als Europäisches Parlament, dass der Schutz von Grundrechten und die verstärkte polizeiliche und justizielle Zusammenarbeit in Europa miteinander vereinbar sind.

Ich möchte mich bei dem Berichterstatter, Herrn Melo, und bei allen Kolleginnen und Kollegen Schattenberichterstattern für die gute und intensive Arbeit sehr herzlich bedanken.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Janusz Wojciechowski (ECR). - Pani Przewodnicząca! Europejski nakaz dochodzeniowy to bardzo ważny instrument, sądzę, że jego praktyczne znaczenie będzie dużo większe niż europejskiego nakazu aresztowania. Będzie on dotyczył bardzo wielu spraw – bardzo często w postępowaniu karnym jest potrzeba poszukiwania dowodów poza granicami kraju, w którym toczy się postępowanie, przesłuchania świadków, biegłych, uzyskanie jakiś dowodów rzeczowych, które się znajdują za granicą, – dlatego organy ścigania na pewno będą chętnie z tego instrumentu korzystać. To będzie dobry, potrzebny instrument zacieśniający współpracę wymiaru sprawiedliwości w państwach członkowskich.

Ale przy tej okazji chcę podzielić się taką refleksją, otóż zacieśniając współpracę wymiaru sprawiedliwości, powinniśmy bardziej uważnie patrzeć na to, jaki jest poziom wymiaru sprawiedliwości w państwach członkowskich. Obywatele często się skarżą na wymiar sprawiedliwości, to nie mogą być państwa w państwie, to musi być naprawdę wymiar sprawiedliwości budzący zaufanie obywateli.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Franco Bonanini (NI). - Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'ordine europeo di indagine penale e il mandato di arresto europeo sono due temi chiave nella costruzione di uno spazio penale europeo.

La relazione del collega Melo introduce strumenti di contrasto alla criminalità più adeguati di quelli offerti dalla cooperazione giudiziaria tradizionale. Al contempo, la necessità di assicurare il rispetto dei diritti fondamentali dell'uomo, espressi dalla CEDU, nello svolgimento delle attività di indagini rappresenta un obiettivo da perseguire. In questo senso appaiono apprezzabili le disposizioni degli articoli 5 e 6.

Il monitoraggio effettuato sull'applicazione del mandato d'arresto ha evidenziato significative storture sul piano applicativo nell'uso che di tale strumento hanno fatto i vari Stati. Ad esse si affiancano lacune normative che rendono più che incerta la tutela dei diritti fondamentali garantiti dall'articolo 6 della carta CEDU. Mi sembra doveroso segnalare quella che impone all'autorità che emette il mandato europeo un controllo sulla proporzionalità della misura, previsione imprescindibile per ridurre l'uso non equilibrato che dalla stessa si è fatto nella prassi.

Un'altra raccomandazione assume un ruolo fondamentale per la tutela dei diritti dell'uomo: mi riferisco all'obbligo gravante sugli Stati di garantire il diritto a un ricorso effettivo ai sensi dell'articolo 13 della carta CEDU contro la richiesta di esecuzione di uno strumento di riconoscimento reciproco.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). - Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissario Reding, non vi è dubbio che le misure giudiziarie delle quali oggi stiamo parlando siano d'indiscutibile rilevanza nella costruzione di uno spazio unico di giustizia anche sotto il profilo penale. Tuttavia, la credibilità e l'efficacia della giustizia passano da strumenti concreti e incisivi, per cui sono fondamentali il pieno e il reciproco riconoscimento e la rapida esecuzione fra gli Stati membri.

Per quanto riguarda il mandato d'arresto, è giusta la riflessione che è stata voluta dalla relatrice Ludford al riguardo di un uso secondo criteri di rigorosa proporzionalità, perché vi è l'esigenza da un canto di tutelare i diritti fondamentali e, dall'altro, di acquisire la certezza rispetto ad una possibile ipotesi di reato.

Mi complimento con il collega Nuno Melo per l'attività eccellente che ha posto in essere con riferimento all'ordine europeo d'indagine: la raccolta di prove secondo criteri rigorosi e concreti che favoriscano la certezza del diritto.

Non vi è dubbio che in questo momento la cooperazione giudiziaria di polizia è essenziale nella costruzione di questo spazio di giustizia. Per poterlo fare bisogna ridurre evidentemente l'uso del mandato di arresto europeo ai casi nei quali vi è un contrasto al crimine transnazionale e in tutti quei casi in cui è necessario il ricorso ad un provvedimento di custodia cautelare.

Per quanto riguarda l'ordine europeo d'indagine, invece, è importante avere previsto che i costi siano a carico dello Stato d'esecuzione, così come è importante aver pensato e riconosciuto l'audizione dei testimoni anche attraverso le videoconferenze. Non vi è dubbio che il sistema di informatizzazione rappresenta un modello di riferimento anche sul piano organizzativo.

Signora Presidente, concludo dicendo come siano importanti questi strumenti anche rispetto alla Procura europea, sulla quale la prossima plenaria a marzo discuterà una relazione preliminare che, confidiamo, possa orientare i prossimi lavori di Commissione e Consiglio.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Claude Moraes (S&D). - Madam President, some months ago I gave evidence to the British House of Lords on the efficacy of the European Arrest Warrant and in researching that I learned, as a citizen of Europe, that in fact the European Arrest Warrant had been extremely effective. It had in fact become a cornerstone of cross-border criminal justice but, of course, as everyone in this House knows, it needed urgent and clear reform.

But the question of where that balance lay is the work that Baroness Ludford has done very effectively, and our Group is very happy to support it because, in order for us cross over from the caricatures of how the European Arrest Warrant has been treated – as a poster child of how justice and home affairs cooperation is bad – then we must have clear evidence, cold and objective, as to what exactly is going wrong with the European Arrest Warrant.

In my own city of London, in my country the United Kingdom, in the case of Maggie Hughes, whom the Commissioner knows, and her son Robert, who suffered a brutal life-changing gang attack whilst on holiday in Crete – his attackers are on trial thanks to the European Arrest Warrant. The perpetrators of the attempted bombings in London on 21[nbsp ]July 2005 are also being brought to justice because of the European Arrest Warrant.

But of course there are many trivial cases. There are many people who have long pre-trial detention. There is the inability of the UK courts to consider the human rights system in the country of extradition. There is so much to be reformed. And that is the work that we have to do today.

But let us get the balance right and let us reform with a sense of objectivity, a sense of balance, let us do our work here as MEPs to get the balance right. That does not mean that reform is not necessary. But when we did our work on the European Arrest Warrant we found out something very valuable and that is that when you look at the facts, what you find out is that we do something here in cross-border justice that is very effective for citizens of Europe, but when we find out the detail, that is when we get clarity.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Gerard Batten (EFD), blue-card question. – Claude, can I ask you to retract something that you said in that speech? You referred to the Crete case and Mr[nbsp ]Hughes and you said that his attackers are on trial in Greece. No, those accused of attacking him are on trial in Greece and they are innocent until proved guilty. Some of them have alibis showing that they were not even present at the place where the attack took place. Nevertheless the lack of evidence against them has not stopped them being extradited. I know that you are a very fair man so would you like to retract the word ‘attacker’ and say ‘accused’ instead?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Claude Moraes (S&D), blue-card answer. – Yes, I should have said – I don’t know what I did say, I should re-read my speech. I said ‘he was on holiday in Crete and his attackers are on trial thanks to the EAW’. But I think you are right. I think this is not the best example but you are probably correct.

But I think the wider point I am making – I never get a blue-card question, President, so if you do not mind I will just explain this to my colleague – is that there are many examples of where the European Arrest Warrant has rapidly brought people to trial.

But the wider point that you are making is where some of these cases go badly wrong. I know you have such examples and I would never deny this. That is why we are trying to reform the European Arrest Warrant and I hope that you would respect that point too.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  James Nicholson (ECR). - Madam President, where I come from in Northern Ireland, we are in a very unique position of being the only part of the United Kingdom which has a land border with another Member State. The border is notoriously porous, and tackling criminality in this region is both difficult and dangerous. It requires some of the closest cross-border police cooperation in the European Union, and I would like to pay tribute to the PSNI in Northern Ireland and the Garda Síochána in the Republic for the way in which they have developed over the years. Many times in the past that cooperation did not exist.

The European Arrest Warrant is amongst the most important tools we have in fighting cross-border terrorism. Without it there would be no legal basis for extradition between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. This would leave Northern Ireland extremely vulnerable and precariously under-equipped. From a prosecutorial perspective, any lessening of mutual assistance and the resulting legal abyss would only benefit the terrorists and criminals. Some 192 suspected criminals or terrorists were surrendered to the UK authorities between 2004 and 2013.

Provided we continue to press for a high level of proportionality, I can lend my support to the review of the EAW, as it is clearly delivering the desired results. Congratulations to the rapporteur.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Davor Ivo Stier (PPE). - Gospođo predsjednice, podržavam ulogu Europske unije na području kaznenog prava i stoga smatram da je direktiva o europskom istražnom nalogu korak u dobrom pravcu jer će omogućiti lakše prikupljanje dokaza u slučajevima koji imaju prekograničnu dimenziju. Isto tako želim i ovdje potvrditi kako je europski uhidbeni nalog i dalje najuspješniji mehanizam koji Europska unija ima u kaznenom pravu. Naravno, ima i tu prostora za poboljšanja, za ujednačavanje prakse unutar Europske unije i prvenstveno za izbjegavanje političkog utjecaja prilikom izdavanja ili primjene europskog uhidbenog naloga. No, revizija europskog uhidbenog naloga ne smije rezultirati dužim procesima, niti otežati izručenje optuženika.

U ovom trenutku smatram da naglasak mora biti na dužnosti država članica u dosljednoj primjeni europskog uhidbenog naloga, bez političke manipulacije. Evo, na primjer, slučaj europskog uhidbenog naloga koji je prošlog ljeta stigao u Hrvatsku za dvojicu visokopozicioniranih dužnosnika bivše jugoslavenske tajne policije, pokazao je kako su strukture iz totalitarne prošlosti još uvijek utjecajne. Pokazalo se da su te strukture spremne koristiti svoju moć za donošenje antieuropskih zakona, za manipulaciju javnog mijenja i za pritisak na pravosuđe, iako u tome nisu uspjeli, prvenstveno jer je Europska komisija snažno reagirala u zaštiti pravne stečevine i vladavine prava.

Vlasti u Zagrebu morale su odustati od blokade europskog uhidbenog naloga, morale su omogućiti da sudovi, a ne politika odluče o sudbini bivših dužnosnika jugoslavenske tajne policije. To je bila pobjeda hrvatske pravne države i europskih vrijednosti. Danas i najveći euroskeptici i oni koji su govorili da je Hrvatska prerano ušla u Europsku uniju moraju priznati da bi ubojstva hrvatskih iseljenika ostala nekažnjena da Hrvatska nije 1. srpnja postala punopravna članica Europske unije.

Konačna primjena uhidbenog naloga označila je stoga početak jednog novog europskog razdoblja za Hrvatsku u kojem više nitko ne smije biti iznad zakona, a to je ključno za našu budućnost jer nema ekonomskog rasta niti društvenog razvoja bez vladavine prava.

 
  
 

Procedura "catch-the-eye"

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). - Aš dėl Europos arešto orderio. Sveikinu pranešėjos poziciją, kad Europos arešto orderio įgyvendinimo procedūros turi būti aiškesnės, ir šalys turėtų laikytis vienodų standartų. Kaip tik nevienodi standartai prieš kelis metus lėmė skaudų atvejį, kai viena Europos Sąjungos šalis, remdamasi procedūriniais dalykais, atsisakė perduoti įtariamąjį nusikaltimais žmoniškumui ir karo nusikaltimais kitai Europos Sąjungos valstybei. Kalbu apie Michailo Golovatovo atvejį ir tai, kad jis nebuvo išduotas Lietuvos valstybei, kur, kaip įtariama, jis 1991[nbsp ]m. sausio 13[nbsp ]d. įvykdė nusikaltimus žmoniškumui.

Tenka apgailestauti, kad pranešime neaptariamas išimties tikslingumas, pagal kurią ekstradicija pagal Europos arešto orderį yra vykdoma tik bylose dėl nusikaltimų, įvykdytų po 2002[nbsp ]m. Mano įsitikinimu, ši išimtis neturi būti taikoma, ypač sunkiems nusikaltimams, t.[nbsp ]y. nusikaltimams žmoniškumui ir karo nusikaltimams, kuriems pagal tarptautinę teisę netaikomas senaties terminas. Beje, tą valstybėms narėms apsvarstyti yra siūliusi ir Europos Komisija, šios išimties netaikyti buvo įpareigota ir naujoji Europos Sąjungos valstybė narė Kroatija.

Norėčiau, pasitaikius progai, paklausti Komisijos narės V.[nbsp ]Reding: ką jūs manote apie tą laiko apribojimą, kad nusikaltimai yra taikomi tik po 2002[nbsp ]m.?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). - Predsjedavajuća, europski uhidbeni nalog predstavlja važan alat u pravosudnoj suradnji između država članica jer staje na kraj onim kriminalcima koji su se vješto sakrivali iza sporosti i traljavosti koje su dugo bile odlika međudržavne koordinacije. Za Hrvatsku je ovo posebno važno pitanje jer su njezini državljani i domoljubi bili žrtve sustavnog progona i likvidacija od strane bivše Jugoslavenske obavještajne službe.

Posebno pozdravljam Rezoluciju u onom dijelu u kojem poziva na suradnju država članica i Komisije radi osposobljavanja pravosudnog osoblja i pravnih stručnjaka kako bi se podigla učinkovitost. Slučaj iz Hrvatske u kojoj je jedan sud odlučio izručiti Perkovića Njemačkoj zbog ubojstva hrvatskog emigranta Đurekovića, dok sud čija teritorijalna nadležnost završava samo 16 kilometara dalje nije izručio Perkoviću nadređenog Mustača po istoj optužnici pokazuje koliko su nam izmjene i dopune Okvirne odluke o europskom uhidbenom nalogu doista iznimno potrebne.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Adam Bielan (ECR). - Pani Przewodnicząca! Europejski nakaz aresztowania ma na celu przyspieszenie procedur związanych z doprowadzeniem podejrzanych i oskarżonych przed oblicze wymiaru sprawiedliwości. Wyeliminowane zostały poprzednio funkcjonujące administracyjne etapy podejmowania decyzji, przez co znacząco skrócił się czas ekstradycji. W sytuacji otwartych granic wewnętrznych państwa członkowskie muszą dysponować narzędziami gwarantującymi, że poszukiwani przestępcy nie unikną osądzenia. Wciąż jednak wspólnotowe regulacje w tym zakresie charakteryzują pewne niedoskonałości. Powoduje to w określonych przypadkach domniemaną wybiórczość działania krajowych organów decyzyjnych prowadzącą do nadużywania tego mechanizmu bądź niedostosowywania zasady proporcjonalności. Apeluję zatem do Komisji i państw członkowskich o zacieśnienie współpracy w zakresie właściwego wykorzystania oraz niepodważania wiarygodności europejskiego nakazu aresztowania.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). - Spoločný európsky priestor si vyžaduje zakotvenie dobrého definovania, efektívnej spolupráce bezpečnostných a justičných zložiek pri stíhaní migrujúcich páchateľov trestných činov. Rámcové rozhodnutie o európskom zatykači z roku 2002 predpokladá vzájomné uznávanie aktov na základe vzájomnej dôvery. Správy Európske komisie o vykonávaní rámcového rozhodnutia konštatujú viacero problémov komplikujúcich fungovanie tohto systému. Preto bude potrebné, aby Komisia pripravila súbor legislatívnych opatrení eliminujúcich zistené nedostatky uplatňovania európskeho zatykača v praxi. Malo by pritom okrem zistení zahrnutých vo svojich správach vychádzať aj z analýz nevykonaných európskych zatykačov, ktoré naznačujú v akých oblastiach sú súčasné mechanizmy v podstate neefektívne a neúčinné.

 
  
 

(Fine della procedura "catch-the-eye")

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. - President, let me remind the House that there are specific rules in the justice and home affairs domain. They are different to the rules in other political domains. For instance, according to the Lisbon Treaty, Member States can make legislative proposals without the Commission. This is the case for the European Investigation Order. Fortunately, in this case, the European Parliament is in codecision mode and could present proposals which reconciled security with rights.

The second element is that before Lisbon the Member States could present proposals without the Commission, without the European Parliament, without the scrutiny of the Court of Justice. Fortunately, this period ends as of 1 December. We will be out of the state of exception then.

On the European Investigation Order, let me stress that I hope that this time this directive is implemented and applied, unlike the Evidence Warrant framework, which was only implemented by two Member States. And I am also telling the Parliament that the implementation of this directive can then be monitored by the Commission. The Commission will not hesitate to launch infringement proceedings for failure to transpose or apply the rules adopted. The same will be the case for the European Arrest Warrant, because on 1[nbsp ]December the transitional phase of the Treaty of Lisbon will end, and as from that date the Commission will be able to launch infringement proceedings for failure to correctly apply the European Arrest Warrant.

We will then work towards full implementation and in the case of instruments like the European Supervision Order, we can help to reduce pre-trial detention in European Arrest Warrant cases, so it will be important to have all the instruments functioning together.

Let me underline once more the kind of work we have been doing for several years now. I refer here to fair trial rights, which are directives presented by the Commission on the basis of the Lisbon Treaty to reconcile security considerations with the rights of individuals. All these directives contain specific elements which strengthen the application of the arrest warrant, the right to interpretation and to translation, the right to information about rights, the right to have access to a lawyer, and even to have access to a lawyer in the country of origin and in the country of destination under the Arrest Warrant, and these are rights which you have on the table now. Legal aid, presumption of innocence, procedural rights for children and vulnerable people, all these are very important so that we have this equilibrium which unfortunately in pre-Lisbon times we did not have. Parliament now has the possibility to implement those. I just regret that some Member States refuse to participate in those elements of fair trial rights. That is not positive for the development of the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nuno Melo, relator. - Senhora Presidente, o que esta diretiva permitirá é, na verdade, mais justiça, porque assegurará mais eficácia nas investigações criminais, com respeito pelos direitos do Homem e com proporcionalidade. O Sr. Batten insurgia-se porque os polícias europeus vão ter de investigar crimes. É evidente que os polícias europeus vão ter de investigar crimes. Insurgia-se porque a Inglaterra, designadamente, vai com isso ter que despender dinheiro. É verdade, a Inglaterra como a França, como a Alemanha, como Portugal, como cada um dos 28 países europeus, mas com uma prioridade que é ela própria consequência de estarmos num espaço comum que é a União Europeia.

O propósito é assegurar que quem comete um crime será investigado, julgado, avaliada a sua culpa num tribunal isento e imparcial. E, feita a prova, punido. Ou, não sendo feita essa prova, absolvido. É isso que é suposto na União Europeia. A União Europeia é um espaço de liberdade. Todos os dias consagramos aqui essa liberdade. Consagramo-la também nestes instrumentos, dando todas as garantias supostas num Estado de direito àqueles que são investigados, àqueles que são arguidos. Numa designação que tem que ver com a ordem jurídica portuguesa: àqueles que são suspeitos. Mas numa certeza: é que se, quando vigora Schengen, permitindo-se a fácil circulação de pessoas, tendo-se a certeza que também mais facilmente se cometem crimes, a justiça de todos os países não acompanhar este fluxo, a justiça dos países não for capaz de dar resposta, então não teremos União Europeia como um espaço de liberdade, porque falharemos na União Europeia como um espaço de justiça.

E termino então, Sra. Presidente, novamente agradecendo a todos os relatores-sombra, à Comissão e ao Conselho.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sarah Ludford, rapporteur. - Madam President, I agreed with almost everybody in the debate and thank them warmly for taking part.

If I may, I will single out the powerful remarks of Mr Nicholson about the situation on the island of Ireland. I even agreed with the precision of Mr Batten over the word ‘alleged’. But it will not surprise Mr Batten that my views are diametrically opposed to his. I look forward to my party leader wiping the floor – metaphorically of course – with his leader in the Nick v. Nigel debate in the UK.

I would just like to make two points that I did not cover in my opening remarks, firstly to highlight the importance that we place on addressing the question of excessively long pre-trial remand and poor prison conditions, which seriously undermine mutual trust. We are calling on the Commission to explore all the means available to improve standards of detention, including legislative proposals on the conditions of pre-trial detention.

The second point I wanted to highlight, as mentioned by one speaker, was the need for better training of legal practitioners and the need for support for defence lawyers acting in this field.

But I absolutely agree with Vice-President Reding on the importance of the procedural rights directives in the roadmap launched four years ago. I was the rapporteur on the first one. I am pressing the UK Government on the Right to a Lawyer Directive. I want the UK to implement the European Supervision Order too. I am pleased they have opted into the European Investigation Order, as into two-thirds of post-Lisbon measures. This is one of the reasons why my report calls for the timely and effective implementation of the whole body of EU criminal justice instruments, including the EIO, the ESO and procedural rights measures. I believe that Commission and Court infringement powers are necessary.

But I was rather disappointed with what I felt was the lack of a really proactive response from Vice-President Reding, saying that any re-opening of the EAW would be premature. I do not agree with that conclusion. I think that saying that our report will feed into the permanent ongoing work on reviewing the EAW is insufficient. I look forward to pressing the Commission and then working within the framework of cooperation between Parliament and the Commission to get a legislative proposal from the Commission in the year ahead. You have heard the weight of really united opinion from Parliament and that will not be ignored.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Gerard Batten (EFD), blue-card question. – Sarah, you spoke about the excessive length of pre-trial detention and I would agree with you: that is to be avoided. But would you agree that one of the reasons for this is because, when people are extradited to Britain, the police must be case-ready. They have to have a case fully prepared to go to trial before they can extradite somebody. Whereas under some continental systems investigative judges may hold people while they investigate, which results in sometimes weeks, months or years of them being detained.

Would you agree with me that every police force in the European Union should be case-ready before they request somebody’s judicial surrender?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sarah Ludford, rapporteur, blue-card answer. - Enormous surprise – yes, I agree totally with you. The way that the EAW is worded is that in pre-trial cases it is for the purposes of criminal prosecution. It is not for the purposes of investigation, which is one of the reasons why the EIO is going to be so important – filling that gap, taking the strain off the EAW – and that is why we refer in the report to the need for trial readiness. The consultation procedure that we are envisaging will be very important, allowing the courts in the two countries to consult on that point.

There are different systems in the Member States. We are not making criminal justice uniform in the EU. That is the whole point of mutual recognition. But it is important because pre-trial detention – excessively long periods – is, as I just said, a major issue in undermining mutual trust. You and I have a constituent, Andrew Symeou, who went through an appalling experience which should not have happened. Personally I think that UK courts should have refused extradition in this case. But anyway, I agree that the EAW must be used for the purposes of prosecution, not for fishing expeditions or for the purposes of investigation.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Presidente. - La discussione congiunta è chiusa.

La votazione si svolerà giovedì 27 febbraio 2014.

 
Last updated: 3 May 2014Legal notice