Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 1 December 2005 - Brussels

4. Developments in Slovakia regarding police forces

  President.   The next item is the Commission statement on developments in Slovakia regarding police forces.

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. Mr President, the Commission is well aware of the concerns raised by honourable Members in relation to the Slovak police force. Given the complexity and sensitivity of the matter and the time needed for the Commission to take a position, further time is required to analyse the issue and acquire objective and impartial information.

The Commission services responsible have been in contact with the Permanent Representation of the Slovak Republic here in Brussels and they are seeking the required information. In addition, the Commission was informed extensively on the matter by the European Confederation of Police.

I regret that we cannot give you a more complete answer at this stage. The Commission is doing all it possibly can to reach conclusions on this matter as soon as possible and it will promptly report to you on its findings. The Commission would therefore be ready to reply to the oral question at a subsequent part-session, should Parliament decide to add it to its agenda.

  Ján Hudacký, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (SK) Discrediting one’s own country in pursuit of one’s political goals. That is how we might characterise the intervention of Mrs Beňová and her proposal to place a discussion on the situation in the Slovak police force on the agenda.

Political manoeuvring of union bosses in the police force has nothing to do with the protection of working conditions and human rights. Their lies, half-truths and suppression of the facts regarding the salaries that, by the way, were raised two weeks prior to the meeting in question had the aim of manipulating decent police officers and undermining the effectiveness of the police, thereby depriving citizens of their right to protection and security. The prospect of the Slovak Government caving in to union bosses dangerously draws the police into the political strife.

The political shenanigans of union bosses must not detract from the excellent results achieved by the police in the fight against organised crime and corruption in Slovakia. The slogans put up at the most recent meeting, such as ‘If the government will not pay the police, the mafia will be happy to’. go beyond all the accepted principles of independent trade union activity.

The assembly right of the police has never been curtailed or questioned, as proven by the rally scheduled for next Saturday. Neither the European Parliament nor other institutions of the European Union should allow themselves to be drawn into these unsavoury political manoeuvrings, which have been orchestrated with the aim of discrediting the achievements of the governing coalition in Slovakia.

  Monika Beňová, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (SK) Commissioner, your response has disappointed rather than surprised me. I will continue to insist that the Commission pursue this matter very closely. I can make no further comment on what you have told us, since you have in fact told us nothing. Please do not take this as a personal attack, as it is intended rather as an attack on the content of the material submitted by the Commission.

My colleague Mr Hudacký, who like myself is from Slovakia, spoke of how a political squabble has been escalated to the Chamber of the European Parliament. I would like to state categorically that what happened at the Interior Ministry has been roundly condemned even by the deputy chairman of the Committee for Defence and Security, who is a member of the governing coalition, from the party of Premier Dzurinda. This indicates that the affair cannot be dismissed as an internal political squabble. It is now a question for the European Commission to state whether it is acceptable to suppress the rights of police officers in Slovakia. For, a police officer is an EU citizen and an employee just as any other EU citizen or employee.

We have placed two important questions before the Commission. These questions are all the more important for us because there may have been a breach of the European Human Rights Convention and of the Code of Police Ethics of the Council of Europe. We believe that the European Commission has a duty to give its opinion on whether or not the rights of citizens of an EU Member State have been breached. Parliament yesterday allowed this question to be referred to the Commission, thereby giving a very strong signal that it does not agree with the use of such practices by any EU Member State. Therefore, Commissioner, I ask once again that this matter not be sidelined and that we return to it at the next sitting of Parliament, and that you inform the MEPs about the opinion of the Commission.

  Angelika Beer, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner Kovács, my group – the Greens – was in favour of us having this debate today. We take this line because of information received from Slovakia, in particular from the ‘European Confederation of Police’, which has been in our hands since June. It is because we are deeply concerned about something that we do not regard as an internal matter for Slovakia that we urge you to examine these accusations as soon as possible. Making Slovak police subject to military jurisdiction quite self-evidently goes against what has been laid down by the Council of Europe, not to mention police ethics. Treating police and soldiers as one and the same is in breach of the Geneva Convention and the United Nations Convention.

Civilian status for the police is one of the things democracy has achieved in Europe; it is something we have fought for, particularly in the Balkan countries, where police were involved in military actions during the ethnic conflicts. If the reports we have received are to be believed, we have to require the Slovak Government – and the country’s parliament as well – to reverse this misguided decision, which constitutes a reversion to an era and a type of politics that is not compatible with European democratic principles, and to return to the democratic community.

Police officers have a right to demonstrate too! Their freedom to do so is emblematic of the freedom of our society and of democracy. It is for that reason that we ask the Commission to examine these accusations with the minimum possible delay and to state its position on them.

  Tobias Pflüger, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, this is a two-spheres issue. It appears that, in Slovakia, the police were returned to military jurisdiction, which amounts to remilitarisation and is not acceptable. The police and the armed forces are, to put it quite simply, two different pairs of boots. It has to be said, though, that it is precisely this sort of confusion between the civilian and military spheres that is characteristic of the European Union when it deploys the military or the police abroad. The forthcoming Austrian presidency has gone so far as to define this as one of its priorities.

Secondly, there is also, in this context, the issue of the limitation of police officers’ trade union rights, which is not acceptable either. This House always makes a big thing of the violation of human rights in countries outside the European Union, but it also needs to call by their proper name manifest infringements of human rights within the European Union, and this is where your statement, Commissioner, did not go far enough: there is room for improvements here, and it is in this area that you need to make them; it is about this that you need to provide more information. Nor should we be reticent about highlighting human rights abuses in other countries; I will give you one example from Germany, for there, too, people are currently being excluded from certain jobs and there is excessive police violence and this needs to be said openly in this House.

  Sergej Kozlík (NI). – (SK) I have been following the recent activities of the Slovak Interior Minister, Mr Palko, with great concern and disquiet. These activities directly undermine the basic principles of democracy and civic freedoms in Slovakia.

The Interior Minister has interfered and continues to interfere with a legitimate trade union protest by Slovak police officers. By dismissing the chairman of the Police Federation and demoting him to the rank of ordinary police officer, he has interfered not only with personal rights of a police representative, but has thereby threatened the constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens, citizens’ associations and trade unions to freely express their opinions. Our People’s Party – HZDS perceives Minister Palko’s threats of imposing disciplinary measures against the protesting police officers as a preposterous manifestation of the arrogance of power.

Esteemed colleagues, Mr Palko is a senior representative of a political party belonging to the European People's Party. I would therefore urge the leadership of this group not to stick its head in the sand, but to investigate the matter closely. On behalf of independent members of People’s Party – HZDS in Slovakia, I express our support for the call made by the European confederation of police EUROCOP to change the system of management of police forces in Slovakia, and convey our request that the matter be investigated by the European Commission.

  Anna Záborská (PPE-DE). – (SK) – Our discussions today about the issue and expressions of support for protesting policemen are part of the opposition’s election campaign and of a smear campaign against a successful Slovak Government minister.

It is not true that at time of war policemen will be tried in the same way as soldiers. It is not true that from 2006 Slovak police will be overseen by the military. It is not true that policemen will be deprived of their rights, because military tribunals will conduct proceedings under the civilian legislation and, at time of war, policemen will be tried in the same way as ordinary citizens.

The Slovak police work under the same set of rules as the gendarmerie in France and carabinieri in Italy. The practice of military prosecution handling the criminal offences committed by policemen has been long established. Any claims that the police service is being remilitarised should be dismissed – if you excuse the use of such terms – as nonsense and demagoguery. I would like to point out to my esteemed colleague Mrs Beňová that a majority of the MPs from her own party supported this draft legislation in Slovak parliament, and indeed withheld their support from an amendment proposal aimed at changing the system.

  Poul Nyrup Rasmussen (PSE). – Mr President, I must insist that the Commission give a full reply at the part-session in Strasbourg. I thank the Commissioner for his offer. Unfortunately, he cannot give us his response today but we must have a clear response.

I would like to say to the previous speaker that this is not a question of propaganda. What we are talking about here is Slovakia, a new Member State of the European Union, which, under the Copenhagen criteria, has exactly the same duties and rights as any other member.

Article 6(1) of the EU Treaty provides for democratic rights and fundamental freedoms. In Article 6(2), the European Union guarantees rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. In that Convention, we talk about equal access to the legal system and equal treatment in court. A military court does not consist of independent judges: it is appointed by the government and is in contradiction to the fundamental values of the European Treaty.

I therefore ask the Commissioner to answer two questions: first, are we right in saying that the police in Slovakia do not have the same access to a fair treatment in court as any other citizens in Slovakia? Second, am I right in saying that every Member State – including Slovakia – should fulfil the Copenhagen criteria and that the Slovak Government, in opposing a free trade union for the police, denying it the right to negotiate, to gather and to act, is acting in contravention of the Copenhagen criteria?

These are the two fundamental questions which I would like the Commissioner to answer clearly. I do not doubt that Slovakia and its government – in particular its government – have to respect these fundamental rights. That is why I fully agree with Mrs Beňová that this is a serious case and we need to have a serious and correct answer from the Commission so that the Slovakian people know that the European Union is on their side.

  László Kovács, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I just want to respond to those honourable Members who urged the Commission to give an adequate answer. I would like to tell you that we need more information. In order to get more information we need more time, and certainly before any Member of the Commission comes before this House to give an adequate position, we need to have a debate in the College, on the basis of the information we need.

That is my answer for the time being, but it is certainly not the Commission’s last word on the matter.

  President.   The House has clearly expressed its wish that the questions raised here today should be answered at a later date, and I hope that the Commissioner will pass on this wish.

  Poul Nyrup Rasmussen (PSE). – Mr President, I would just like to ask a formal question on procedure. From what I understood from Commissioner Kovács, the Commission would be prepared to answer the question at the part-session in Strasbourg in two weeks’ time. Have I understood that correctly? It is important and it is urgent that we receive a reasonable, rapid answer. The people of Slovakia really need a clear answer from the Commission, so it is an urgent matter. I would just like to ask you whether we can expect such a timescale – after all, it is two weeks we are talking about.

  President.   I would point out that the agenda for Strasbourg part-sessions, and indeed for all part-sessions, is decided by the Conference of Presidents. As I understand it, therefore, if the Commission is prepared to answer this question in Strasbourg, it will be the Conference of Presidents that is able to decide whether or not to include this item on the agenda.

The debate is closed.

(The sitting was suspended at 10.40 a.m. and resumed at 11 a.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR MOSCOVICI
Vice-President