Resoconto integrale delle discussioni

Lunedì 14 giugno 2010 - Strasburgo

22. Diritto all'interpretazione e alla traduzione nei procedimenti penali (discussione)

  Presidente. − L'ordine del giorno reca la relazione di Sarah Ludford, a nome della commissione per le libertà civili, la giustizia e gli affari interni, sulla proposta di direttiva del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio sul diritto all'interpretazione e alla traduzione nei procedimenti penali (00001/2010 - C7-0005/2010 - 2010/0801(COD) (A7-0198/2010).

  Sarah Ludford, rapporteur. − Madam President, it has been recognised by most of us for over a decade that the EU needed to act to strengthen the rights of suspects and defendants throughout the Union and to give safeguards necessary to ensure fair trials. This is in the context of much tighter cooperation on policing and prosecution, the introduction of the European arrest warrant and the fact that many EU citizens take advantage of free movement rights and may have a brush with the law in an unfamiliar environment.

There was an attempt at a comprehensive measure on so-called procedural guarantees, one that MEPs strongly supported, but that ran up against a brick wall in the Council in 2007.

I was delighted that last year the Commission (and I am delighted to see Vice-President Reding here for this debate), supported by the Swedish Presidency, revived the matter in the form of a road map of half a dozen individual measures. This is the first to see the light of day. This directive says that, if you become a suspect or you are arrested, questioned or put on trial and you do not understand the language of the country, you have a right to interpretation and translation, under certain conditions, for police questioning, hearings, meetings with your lawyer and so on. Broadly speaking, you have to be put in the same position as a local.

The basis of cooperation between Member States in criminal justice is mutual recognition, the almost automatic recognition of the decisions of courts in other EU countries based on mutual trust, but it is not sensible just to assume that trust exists. It has to be earned through full respect by all EU countries of certain standards of justice and fair trial.

All of us in this debate have probably dealt with cases where we do not believe someone got a fair trial. I have recently dealt with the case of Garry Mann, who was returned to Portugal under a European Arrest Warrant. In the original trial both the charge and sentence were delivered orally. Mr Mann did not know what he was charged with until after he was convicted. The interpreter was a local hairdresser, a friend of the judge’s wife. When he was deported back to the UK he was given a simple letter in English effectively saying not to come back to Portugal for two years, yet years later a European Arrest Warrant was issued to summon him back to serve sentence.

Lack of a proper and professional language support has also figured as one of the defects in the case I am dealing with in Greece of Andrew Symeou.

The aim of this measure is not only to make sure that Member States are implementing Article 6 of the European Convention, but also to further develop its minimum standards. As the road map last November said, there is room for further action on the part of the EU to ensure full implementation in respect of convention standards and, where appropriate, to ensure consistent application of those standards and to raise them.

I believe Parliament made good use of its newly acquired Lisbon Treaty powers of joint responsibility for legislation. We fought hard with a lot of help from Vice-President Reding, to whom I pay tribute, and her officials, to raise standards on certain key points, including interpretation of communications between the suspect and the lawyer in all phases of the proceedings, the right for the suspect to challenge the decision that there is no need for interpretation or translation, and also the right to complain on quality.

We secured the right to limit recourse to partial translation, so all essential material must be translated and oral exceptions must indeed be exceptions, and that the suspect should not be allowed to waive the right to translation without prior advice. Those are just some of the key points.

To sum up, I believe strongly in the European arrest warrant, but we need the road-map programme to strengthen citizens’ rights and make it work better. Strengthening safeguards and defence rights is not at all about being soft on crime. It is about being tough on crime. Good efficient justice through high-quality decisions means catching more criminals, and cutting corners on costs is not best value since if you get a poor court decision or bad police practice, then people are going to appeal.

Cheap justice is no justice. I therefore commend this directive to you. I thank the Spanish Presidency, with whom we have a good process of negotiation as well as with the Commission, and I will deal in my summing-up with the plenary amendments being tabled.

IN THE CHAIR: Diana WALLIS
Vice-President

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. − Madam President, that is right. Procedural safeguards represent a top priority in the justice area for the coming years because we need those minimum standards for the rights of the defendants in criminal proceedings. They are indispensable to promote real mutual trust between the judicial authorities of different Member States. Without this trust, mutual recognition will never work properly.

Judges and prosecutors must be confident that, no matter where the proceedings take place in the Union, a common core of basic rights will be upheld. Citizens must be sure that minimum standards for procedural rights will enforce their trust in our justice system and also in the EU as an area of freedom and security and justice.

That is why I warmly welcome the agreement reached by the two co-legislators. I would like to give specific thanks to the rapporteur, Baroness Ludford, and the whole LIBE Committee for their excellent work on this file.

As Commissioner, I am pleased that many of the compromise solutions take inspiration from our March 2010 proposal. The proposal was meant to reach what Parliament has now reached, namely to ensure high standards for defendants and to avoid any risk of falling below the European Convention on Human Rights acquis. The directive, as it is now on the table, will increase the minimum standards. Consistent provision of interpretation throughout criminal proceedings and translation of essential documents will simply result in the right to a fair trial being upheld in a more systematic and streamlined way. I fully agree with the rapporteur that cheap justice is no justice and leads to more costs in the end as well as to a lack of trust from both judges and citizens.

I am also very glad that it was possible to have a very swift adoption of this directive. This is the first step on the road map which indicates that all institutions are living up to the pledge they made to treat this file as a matter of priority.

There is only one element with which I have to disagree, and that is the request by some Member States to extend the implementation period to 36 months. The Commission considers that three years is excessively long because none of the Member States submitted any evidence that the implementation of this piece of legislation would be very difficult. In addition, the Member States also knew that this legislation would be adopted and have already known this for several years.

Having said that, in a spirit of compromise, I will accept the solution. What I say now is very important for the future. On the understanding that this will not set a precedent for future road map measures – and I would like to underline this three times – I will say ‘yes’ this time but not again. I would also like to emphasise that the Commission will deploy all the necessary resources at its disposal to enforce the Member States’ obligations concerning the timely and correct implementation of the decision. This is in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty and with the Stockholm Programme.

As you know, the Commission is already working on the subsequent road map measures. I will very shortly be putting forward a proposal on the right to information – the letter of rights. This will be presented in the coming week, so what we have initiated today will be work in progress.

  Elena Oana Antonescu, în numele Grupului PPE. – Aş dori să încep prin a o felicita pe dna raportor Ludford pentru întreaga muncă depusă şi prin a-i mulţumi pentru modul în care a colaborat cu raportorii alternativi.

Existenţa unor standarde comune este o condiţie esenţială pentru încrederea reciprocă în sistemele legale ale statelor membre. Dreptul la un proces echitabil al persoanelor suspectate sau acuzate este un drept fundamental, prevăzut în articolul 47 din Carta drepturilor fundamentale a Uniunii Europene şi articolul 6 din Convenţia europeană pentru apărarea drepturilor omului şi a libertăţilor fundamentale. Însă, în lipsa unor standarde adecvate în ceea ce priveşte apărarea, există riscul producerii unor dezechilibre între mijloacele pe care acuzarea le are la dispoziţie şi gradul de protecţie a drepturilor persoanelor suspectate sau acuzate.

Eforturile depuse pentru consolidarea drepturilor procedurale în Uniunea Europeană au fost de lungă durată. Primii paşi au fost făcuţi în noiembrie 2000, când Consiliul, în conformitate cu Concluziile de la Tampere, a adoptat un program de măsuri de punere în aplicare a principiului recunoaşterii reciproce în materie penală. Au urmat apoi propunerea Comisiei de decizie-cadru privind anumite drepturi procedurale în procesele penale, în anul 2004, în cazul căreia nu s-a putut ajunge la un acord, negocierile fiind abandonate în iunie 2007; foaia de parcurs a Preşedinţiei suedeze din iulie 2009, care a propus o abordare graduală a drepturilor procedurale; propunerea Comisiei din iulie 2009, respectiv decembrie 2010, odată cu intrarea în vigoare a Tratatului de la Lisabona şi a schimbării de cadru juridic şi, în sfârşit, iniţiativa celor treisprezece state membre.

Iată că, după aproape şapte ani, suntem pe cale să adoptăm prima măsură din cadrul foii de parcurs privind drepturile procedurale: Directiva privind dreptul la interpretare şi la traducere în cadrul procedurilor penale. Vreau să îmi exprim satisfacţia cu privire la rezultatul obţinut în urma negocierilor dintre instituţii, textul pe care urmează să îl votăm miercuri aducând îmbunătăţiri importante propunerii statelor membre.

Îmi exprim speranţa că perioada de implementare de trei ani nu va constitui un precedent pentru următoarele măsuri din cadrul foii de parcurs şi că statele membre vor depune toate eforturile pentru a aplica cât mai rapid, în mod corect, coerent şi echitabil, toate prevederile Directivei.

  Carmen Romero López, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora Presidenta, a mí también me satisface la conclusión de estos trabajos, y agradezco a la señora Ludford especialmente la colaboración que nos ha brindado a todos los ponentes alternativos.

Éste es el primer texto de codecisión en el que el Parlamento ha tenido una voz decisiva sobre la propuesta de Directiva que han presentado los tres Estados miembros, y es importante que haya sido una eurodiputada británica la ponente de este texto.

Los Estados miembros han hecho uso de la prerrogativa que les concede el Tratado de Lisboa –como se ha dicho– en materia de cooperación judicial penal para poder presentar iniciativas, pero el bloqueo en el que estaban los derechos procesales desde 2004 fue parcialmente resuelto en este primer derecho en la hoja de ruta presentada por la Presidencia sueca.

El camino estaba abierto y se vio interrumpido por la elección de la nueva Comisión. En este caso, la Comisión decidió presentar también su propuesta de Directiva, que llevaba elaborando. El Parlamento introdujo en sus enmiendas los trabajos de la Comisión. Ha sido, por lo tanto, un ejemplo de buena cooperación institucional para no perder tiempo y poder agilizar estos derechos procesales, este primer derecho.

Ello ha permitido agilizar los trabajos. Ahora esperamos, como la señora Comisaria acaba de decir, que el resto de los derechos, la Carta de Derechos, que es el segundo del paquete de garantías procesales, esté ya cuanto antes aquí, en sede parlamentaria. Y el resto también, porque tampoco tendría ningún sentido que este paquete se fuera demorando y no pudiéramos terminarlo en un plazo razonable.

El espacio de seguridad, de justicia y de libertad no puede construirse, como ya han dicho el resto de las ponentes, si no empezamos con el fundamento de estas garantías procesales. ¿Cómo vamos a vivir en un espacio seguro, justo y libre si un ciudadano puede ser arbitrariamente detenido y se convierte en sospechoso, si no tiene estas garantías procesales, estos estándares mínimos en los Estados miembros? ¿Qué significa entonces esta Europa que queremos construir?

Es cierto, como han dicho también otras ponentes, que las amenazas del terrorismo, del crimen organizado, nos obligan a reforzar nuestros mecanismos de seguridad –de ello es un ejemplo la orden europea de detención– pero todos sabemos que si no tenemos esta Europa de la justicia y de la libertad, no habremos hecho ese diseño que queremos para nuestro futuro.

(La oradora acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la tarjeta azul (Artículo 149, apartado 8, del Reglamento))

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD). - Madam President, I should like to ask Mrs Romero whether it has occurred to her that citizens in countries with much higher standards of individual rights, for example, the United Kingdom, are subjected to the much lower standards of individual rights prevalent in other European countries under the European Arrest Warrant and the other European Justice directives.

Has that occurred to you?

  Carmen Romero López (S&D). - Sí, probablemente la pregunta está interpelando esos estándares mínimos que estamos pretendiendo para los Estados miembros, pero, evidentemente, cada Estado miembro puede incrementar esos estándares y, desde luego, ésa es su intención.

Esto es construir una Europa que nos haga vivir en un espacio en el que podamos tener unos mínimos deseables para todos los Estados miembros, pero qué duda cabe que con la tradición histórica de su país y con la tradición histórica de tantos otros países que componen Europa, estoy segura de que estos estándares se van a incrementar cada vez más.

  Alexandra Thein, im Namen der ALDE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Um die grenzüberschreitende Verfolgung von Verbrechen zur Sicherheit der Bürger in der Europäischen Union zu verbessern, arbeiten Sicherheits- und Strafverfolgungsbehörden immer enger zusammen. Ich verweise insofern beispielhaft auf den Europäischen Haftbefehl. Im Gegenzug sind aber fundamentale Rechte von beschuldigten Bürgern auf der gesetzgeberischen Strecke geblieben. Bisher ist jeder Versuch, rechtstaatliche Garantien im Strafverfahren EU-weit abzusichern, an der erforderlichen Einstimmigkeit im Rat bzw. an der gegenseitigen Anerkennung gescheitert.

Mit dem Inkrafttreten des Lissabon-Vertrags eröffnen sich nun neue Chancen für den Schutz grundlegender Verfahrensrechte der Bürger in Strafverfahren. Das Europäische Parlament ist nunmehr erstmals mitentscheidungsbefugt, und im Rat bedarf es nur noch der qualifizierten Mehrheit.

Wir Liberalen setzen uns bekanntlich für den Schutz und den weiteren Ausbau der Bürgerrechte ein. Daher haben wir uns auch dafür eingesetzt, dass zukünftig alle EU-Bürger das Recht auf einen Dolmetscher und auf eine schriftliche Übersetzung erhalten, wenn sie polizeilich oder gerichtlich als Beschuldigte in einem Mitgliedstaat vernommen werden, dessen Sprache sie nicht beherrschen.

Es ist absolut notwendig, dass nicht nur die Strafverfolgung grenzüberschreitend besser abgestimmt wird, sondern auch die Rechte der Bürger in Ermittlungs- und Strafverfahren – wie z.B. das Recht auf ein faires Verfahren – den Bürgern europaweit auf einem adäquaten Niveau zur Verfügung stehen.

  Heidi Hautala, Verts/ALE-ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, äskeinen kysymys, joka esitettiin Romero Lópezille oli tietysti hyvin olennainen. Juuri sen takia me työstämme prosessuaalisia miniminormeja, että voimme luottaa toisiin jäsenmaihin esimerkiksi rikoksesta epäillyn tai syytetyn luovutustilanteessa.

Haluan kiittää esittelijää siitä, että hän on tehnyt todella hyvää ryhmätyötä meidän kaikkien varjoesittelijöiden kanssa. Kaikkein tärkeintä on todeta, että nyt meillä on direktiivi, jonka tulee taata se, että jokaisella on oikeus ymmärtää ja tulla ymmärretyksi viranomaisessa ja tuomioistuimessa, mikä on yksi oikeusvaltion perusedellytyksistä.

Kiitän esittelijää myös siitä, että hän näki vaivaa löytääkseen ratkaisuja, joiden avulla ylitämme tiettyjä ongelmia, joita eri jäsenvaltioilla on erilaisten oikeuskulttuurien vuoksi. On tietenkin valitettavaa, että voimaanastumisaika tulee olemaan 36 kuukautta. Siitä huolimatta luulen, että meidän täytyy hyväksyä tämä lopputulos, koska se on kuitenkin sisällöltään sellainen, että voimme mennä tästä eteenpäin.

  Bairbre de Brún (GUE/NGL). - A Uachtaráin, tháinig mórcheist amháin chun suntais dom rómhall chun leasuithe a chur síos sa choiste – coiste nach bhfuil mé i mo bhall de. Baineann sé seo leis na teangacha atá clúdaithe ag an treoir.

Is mór againn an tagairt do ‘ateangaireacht agus aistriúchán … i dteanga dhúchais an té atá cúisithe nó amhrasta’ i bpointe 10(e) sa téacs comhaontaithe. Tá baol ann, áfach, gur féidir an fhoráil ‘nó i dteanga eile ar bith a thuigeann sé’ a úsáid chun rogha na dteangacha a shrianadh agus chun tabhairt ar an té atá cúisithe nó amhrasta teanga a úsáid nach dá rogha féin í, teanga lena bhféadfar é nó í a chur faoi mhíbhuntáiste nuair a bhítear ag déileáil le ceisteanna dlíthiúla ar féidir leo bheith casta.

An féidir leis an gCoimisinéir a gheallstan nach amhlaidh an cás agus a gheallstan go mbaineann an treoir seo le teangacha mionlaigh fosta?

Tagraíonn ár leasuithe d’ionstraimí éagsúla idirnáisiúnta agus Eorpacha maidir le húsáid teangacha mionlacha agus réigiúnacha. Go háirithe, tagraímid d’Airteagal 21 den Chairt um Chearta Bunúsacha, a chumhdaíonn, i measc nithe eile, an prionsabal de neamh-idirdhealú maidir le rogha teanga.

Tá súil againn go soiléireoidh na leasuithe an cheist seo faoi theangacha, nach bhfágfaidh siad aon amhras ann agus go dtacófar leo.

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Madam President, this directive is one of a series whose total effect is that every citizen and resident of the United Kingdom is subject to being carted off to jail in other European countries. Whether the country is Portugal, in the case of Garry Mann, or Hungary, in the case of two south-western constituents, there is simply not the same legal protection for the individual as pertains in the United Kingdom – whatever illusions have been pedalled in this Chamber.

Therefore this translation directive is a fig leaf. It is trying to stick plaster over the near-decapitation of Britain’s hard-won liberties at the hand of the European Arrest Warrant. I would note that, even in its own terms, this directive is flawed. The decision as to what is relevant for translation lies largely with the prosecutor. Moreover, there is a chronic and absolute shortage of translators and interpreters, not least because the institutions of the European Union absorb so many.

Our distinguished colleague, Baroness Ludford, has characterised herself many times as a campaigner for human rights. I would ask her, therefore, just this once to put aside her obsession with a federal Europe and join our campaign to repeal the European Arrest Warrant. That is what matters.

  Simon Busuttil (PPE). - Il-proposta li għandna quddiemna llum hija waħda tajba li jistħoqqilha l-appoġġ tagħna għaliex tagħti aktar u mhux inqas drittijiet liċ-ċittadini tal-Unjoni Ewropea. Il-Partit Popolari Ewropew se jivvota favur tagħha, pero mhux se nivvutaw favur l-emendi li ser isiru għaliex inkella nħarbtu l-kompromess delikat illi ntlaħaq. Jien nixtieq fl-intervent tiegħi nitkellem pero dwar is-sitwazzjoni kemxejn ambigwa li nħolqot bejn il-Kunsill u l-Kummissjoni fil-preżentazzjoni ta' din il-proposta leġiżlattiva. Fil-fatt, aħna kellna quddiemna mhux proposta waħda imma tnejn. F'Diċembru li għadda kellna l-proposta leġiżlattiva tal-Kunsill tal-Ministri u f'Marzu ta' din is-sena kellna proposta mingħand il-Kummissjoni fuq preċisament l-istess suġġett. Il-mistoqsija li qamet quddiem dan il-Parlament hija l-mistoqsija ambigwa ta' liema test sejrin naħdmu fuqu aħna f'dan il-Parlament. Fil-fatt naħseb illi din mhijiex l-ewwel darba li ġrat u ser terġa' tkompli tiġri. Fil-fatt bħalissa għandna quddiemna wkoll proposta oħra tal-Kunsill tal-Ministri dwar l-Ordni Ewropea ta' Protezzjoni u anke hawnhekk il-Kummissjoni Ewropea diġà ddikjarat illi trid toħroġ bil-proposta tagħha wkoll. Il-Kunsill fuq din il-proposta qiegħed jgħidilna biex naċċettaw il-proposta tiegħu - qed nitkellem fuq il-proposta dwar il-European Protection Order - mentri l-Kummissjoni qiegħda tgħidilna biex ma naċċetawhiex. Issa żgur li ma kinitx l-intenzjoni ta' min fassal it-Trattat li meta ta l-poter lill-Kunsill li jressaq proposti leġiżlattivi jinħolqu sitwazzjonijiet ambigwi bħal dawn, meta jkollok żewġ istituzzjonijiet jiġġieldu ma' xulxin fuq liema proposta għandha tiġi aċċettata. Jiena jidhirli li f'każi fejn il-Kummissjoni għandha l-intenzjoni li tagħmel proposta allura għandha titħalla l-Kummissjoni tagħmilha u mhux jagħmel il-proposta tiegħu l-Kunsill. Jekk ma nagħmlux hekk nispiċċaw f'sitwazzjonijiet ta' battibekk, ta' ambigwità li tajjeb illi nevitawhom.

  Tatjana Ždanoka (Verts/ALE). - Madam President, first of all I would like to thank Baroness Ludford for her excellent work on behalf of human rights.

I am now speaking on behalf of the European Free Alliance MEPs, representing regions and minorities. I stress that the directive also applies to non-official languages of the European Union. It means that the translation and interpretation referred to in the document should be guaranteed in regional and minority languages. For example, in those judicial districts in which the number of residents using regional or minority languages justifies it, the possibility of using such languages must be afforded. It is a pity that the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages is not yet part of the acquis but I am sure that it will be one day, and that the use of such languages in criminal proceedings will be provided for to a greater extent, although by the EU alone.

  Kinga Gál (PPE). - Tisztelt Elnök asszony! Biztos asszony! Kedves képviselőtársaim! Először is hadd gratuláljak a jelentéstevőnek kitartó munkájához, hiszen a már évek óta tárgyalásban lévő intézkedés a Lisszaboni Szerződésnek köszönhetően végül megvalósulni látszik. A tanácsi road-map 5 intézkedése közül elsőként. Az irányelv fontossága alapvető, hiszen amikor az Unió területén szabadon mozoghatunk és élhetünk, nem elhanyagolható a polgár számára az sem, hogy olyan nehéz helyzetben, mint egy büntetőeljárás megindulása is, meg tudja érteni, hogy mi történik vele és meg tudja értetni magát.

A Stockholmi Program keretein belül kibontakozó kezdeményezés egyike azoknak, amelyek konkrétummal töltik meg az Európai Unió alapvető célkitűzéseit. Ettől válik az uniós jog, a közösségi erőfeszítés életszagúvá, a Stockholmi Program pedig elérhetővé a polgárok számára. Maradéktalanul támogatom az Alapjogi Charta és az Európa Tanács Emberi Jogi Egyezményének vonatkozó paragrafusainak a bevonását is. Lisszabon után és az Emberi Jogi Egyezményhez való csatlakozásunk hajnalán ez elvárható.

Ugyanakkor fontosnak tartom felhívni a figyelmet egy lényeges kérdésre, amire nem tér ki a jelentés. Az adott tagállamon belül, akár nagy számban élő nemzeti kisebbséghez tartozó polgárokat ugyanúgy meg kell illesse az anyanyelvhasználat joga a büntetőeljárás során, mint azt a polgárt, akit épp egy véletlen sodor az adott tagállamba. És épp e közösségi jog rendelkezései folytán használhatni fogja majd anyanyelvét.

Ez a fontos jogszabályi előrelépés arra kellene sarkallja a tagországokat, hogy az elv érvényesüljön azon saját állampolgárai esetében is, akik egy nemzeti kisebbség nyelvén beszélnek. Az uniós koherencia megkívánja, hogy a közösségi jog átültetése kiegészüljön a tagállami hatáskörbe tartozó, mondjuk ezúttal kisebbségi nyelvhasználatot érintő szabályozásokkal.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE). - O facto de os governos dos Estados-Membros não terem chegado a acordo inviabilizou a primeira tentativa de um instrumento jurídico comunitário para garantir uma maior homogeneidade ao nível das garantias processuais em todo o território da União.

Esta nova abordagem gradual começa pelo direito à tradução e à interpretação, no âmbito dos processos penais, e é a primeira de seis medidas previstas no roteiro. Actualmente, o direito à tradução escrita de documentos importantes do processo não existe em todos os Estados-Membros. E, mesmo quando existe, esse direito pode variar consideravelmente. Nem sempre é garantido, por exemplo, o direito à interpretação entre o suspeito e o seu advogado. Esta directiva permite conferir estes direitos a qualquer pessoa suspeita ou acusada da prática de uma infracção penal até ao termo do processo.

Apoio o acordo alcançado em trílogo. Os compromissos alcançados permitem dar resposta à maioria das preocupações, quer as que foram manifestadas pelo Parlamento, quer aquelas que resultaram da proposta da Comissão. Felicito a Comissária Reding pelo facto de ter apresentado oportunamente uma boa proposta e felicito a Baronesa Ludford, a nossa relatora, pelos compromissos que conseguiu obter na maioria dos pontos.

Sublinho especialmente a tradução escrita dos documentos essenciais do processo e a garantia que o nível de protecção nunca deverá ser inferior ao previsto na Convenção Europeia dos Direitos do Homem e na Carta Europeia dos Direitos Fundamentais.

Espero que os Estados-Membros implementem rapidamente aquilo que foi acordado e não deixem para o último momento a transposição desta importante directiva.

Gostei muito de ouvir a Comissária Reding garantir que vai, de imediato, apresentar mais propostas no âmbito do roteiro, e gostaria de incentivá-la a fazê-lo. Temos de tornar evidente que estamos a construir de forma coerente a Europa da justiça e não apenas a Europa da segurança e a Europa da liberdade. Verifico, finalmente, com satisfação, que todos os Estados-Membros, com excepção da Dinamarca, serão abrangidos por estas normas, uma vez que quer o Reino Unido, quer a Irlanda exerceram o seu direito de opt-in.

  Axel Voss (PPE). - Frau Präsidentin! Liebe Frau Kommissarin, Ihnen auch recht herzlichen Dank dafür, dass Sie sich so vehement für die Verfahrensschutzrechte und Normen einsetzen, die uns immer weiter auf einen justiziellen Binnenmarkt zuführen. Ich bin ganz froh, dass wir es letztlich geschafft haben, auch dank meiner Kollegin Elena Antonescu, dass wir die Bagatellverfahren aus diesem Bereich heraushalten konnten. Es wäre noch ganz schön gewesen, bei den Übersetzern noch mehr Anforderungen zu stellen, denn was nützt eine Übersetzung, wenn man die Qualität der Übersetzer nicht sicherstellen kann. Die Umsetzung von drei Jahren halte ich zwar für schmerzlich, aber durchaus nicht für nachteilig für die Betroffenen, weil sie die europäische Menschenrechtskonvention haben und auch der ganze Justizdienst umgestellt werden muss. Das ist bei der Juristerei auch wichtig. Deshalb danke ich Ihnen, dass das so gut gelaufen ist. Vielen Dank!

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). - Frau Präsidentin! Der vorliegende Bericht ist ein Fortschritt für Europa. Er ist ein guter Schritt, um ein Europa des Rechts zu schaffen. Viel wird nun allerdings davon abhängen, ob nun auch der Rahmenbeschluss einheitlich angewendet wird, denn die einheitliche Anwendung des Rahmenbeschlusses ist von absoluter Bedeutung. Denn wenn Unterschiede bei den rechtlichen Mindeststandards bestehen, kann das Vertrauen in die jeweiligen Rechtssysteme nicht hergestellt werden. Darum geht es – Vertrauen herzustellen!

Persönlich möchte ich noch sagen, dass ich es toll gefunden hätte, wenn auch die Verwaltungsstrafverfahren Einzug gehalten hätten, denn nun wird ein sehr wichtiger Komplex des rechtlichen Lebens nicht erfasst. Aber mir ist natürlich bewusst, dass das ein ganz besonders wichtiges und weites Feld ist. Ich hoffe, dass dem im Zuge der Umsetzung des Stockholm-Programms auch bald entsprochen wird.

  Gerard Batten (EFD). - Madam President, the fundamental problem with the European Arrest Warrant is not inadequate translation services, but rather that it has rendered national courts completely powerless to protect their own citizens against unjust extradition in the first place.

My constituent Andrew Symeou has been held for 11 months awaiting trial in the Greek prison of Korydallos. Six more British citizens, including Daniel Bell and George Hollands, face extradition and remand in Korydallos.

The British court is not even allowed to consider the so-called evidence against them. In Korydallos, prisoners are kept four to a cell designed for one, the toilet is a hole in the corner, no toilet paper is supplied, drugs and violence are rife and the screams of rape victims can be heard at night.

The British Government should be ashamed of itself that, on the strength of a piece of paper, it is prepared to consign British citizens to what can only be described as a shithole.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Madam President, it is self-evidently right that people facing criminal proceedings should have interpretation and translation services, especially since the European Arrest Warrant allows people to be extradited for acts that are not even offences in their own country. However, this is one of the unspoken costs of large-scale migration – one that was not admitted at the time that it started.

  Γεώργιος Παπανικολάου (PPE). - Κυρία Πρόεδρε, θέλω και εγώ με τη σειρά μου να ευχαριστήσω την εισηγήτρια για την πολύ γόνιμη συνεργασία που είχαμε. Πολλοί από εμάς, στην Επιτροπή Πολιτικών Ελευθεριών και Δικαιοσύνης, υποβάλαμε τροπολογίες σε αυτήν την τόσο σημαντική έκθεση και οι τροπολογίες αυτές συμπεριλαμβάνονται πλέον στο τελικό κείμενο.

Πράγματι η διαδικασία ήταν εξαιρετικά δύσκολη. Τα συμπεράσματα όμως είναι γόνιμα. Και πράγματι, καθώς φτάνουμε στο σημείο της ψήφισης αυτής της οδηγίας, οφείλουμε όλοι να αναγνωρίσουμε ότι στα πλαίσια των ποινικών διαδικασιών θεμελιώνουμε ακόμη περισσότερο την κατοχύρωση των δικαιωμάτων των αλλόγλωσσων κατηγορουμένων.

Η τριετία όμως που έχουμε μπροστά μας, κυρία Επίτροπε, στα πλαίσια αυτού του οδικού χάρτη για την εφαρμογή είναι αρκετός χρόνος. Περιμένουμε πολλά από την Επιτροπή σε ό,τι αφορά την εφαρμογή και τα χειροπιαστά αποτελέσματα μετά την ενσωμάτωση αυτής της οδηγίας. Έχουμε μεγάλες προσδοκίες. Ευελπιστούμε ότι θα αλλάξουν πολλά. Έχει σημασία όμως, όπως πολύ σωστά ειπώθηκε και από τους συναδέλφους προηγουμένως, να μην τα αφήσουμε όλα για την τελευταία στιγμή.

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. − Madam President, may I thank all the Members of this House who have, in a very credible and strong way, supported the area of justice which we have started to build.

The European Treaty of Lisbon gives us the possibility now – by giving us the tools – to move forward step by step, putting in place the rights of the citizens, be it the rights of the convicted, or the rights of the victims. Everything is in the pipeline and will come quickly.

The question related to more proposals forming part of the road map: yes, after the right of interpretation, which I am sure the House will endorse tomorrow, there will be the right of information, the letter of rights which I will put on the table of this House before summer. That will then be followed by the right to legal advice and the right to communicate with people who are dear to the heart.

So you see we are going in a direction which aims to achieve the following: the same high level of rights for all EU citizens wherever they are, whatever their problem. It does not matter whether they are travelling for study, for business or for leisure: they should feel at home, and have the same rights as they have at home, wherever they find themselves in Europe.

One very important question which has been underlined by several members is the question of language. Article 2(1) and Article 3(1) state very clearly that the accused person who does not understand or speak the language of the criminal proceedings concerned has to be provided with interpretation and a translation of the documents. Now this implicitly means that the language into which the proceedings are translated is the language that this person understands. So in fact it does not concern only European Union languages or minority languages. It concerns the language of the person who is in front of a tribunal. I believe that this is only fair because we have to have fair proceedings in order to build the trust of the citizens in our justice system and also, and this is of the utmost importance, in order to ensure the mutual trust of the judges and the prosecutors in neighbouring countries’ systems, which cannot be achieved unless we also have a comparable level of rights.

There was one question by Mr Busuttil and other Members about procedures – not about procedural rights, but about internal procedures – due to the coexistence of a Member State initiative and of a Commission proposal. Well I must say that in this case this really did not hamper in any way the swift adoption of a very high-quality and balanced legislative instrument.

Why did it happen? We are now in a very peculiar period. We are coming out of the third pillar and find ourselves in a normal codecision situation. I suppose that after some months we will have learned how best to utilise the tools which are at our disposal in order to reach the best solutions very swiftly. And when I say reaching the best solutions, I mean in the way we used to prepare such solutions: by having an impact assessment, by also having a call for people to come in and say what they think about our proposals. These are the normal proceedings which we are used to and which will guarantee in the end, via the codecision procedure and after having a public consultation and an impact assessment, that we achieve sound policy. Sound policy which then can be implemented at national level without creating more distortions than rights, as unfortunately has happened in the past.

But we are here with a new Treaty, we are here with a Charter of Fundamental Rights, we are going to become a party to the European Convention on Human Rights. I am very confident that, if we should meet together some years from now, we will say, yes, together we have constructed that area of justice and fundamental rights which our continent must become.

  Sarah Ludford, rapporteur. − Madam President, I would like very sincerely to thank my high-quality shadow rapporteurs for their help. I am pleased we are debating and voting this directive this week, still under the Spanish Presidency. It is historic, being the first criminal justice measure negotiated under codecision and the first EU fair trial law.

I strongly agree with Vice-President Reding about the three-year implementation period. It was very cheeky of Member States to slip this in unilaterally after we had reached a Council-Parliament deal. They will not get away with it again. I say to UKIP that there is no call to get nationalistic about the quality of justice. I am strongly critical of the lower UK standards that developed over the last decade like control orders, which are house arrest, and 20-day detention without charge. I hope the new government returns fully to the rule of law.

I am very pleased that my country and Ireland have exercised their opt-in to participate, so this directive will cover 26 countries. This directive is in the spirit of Magna Carta, habeas corpus and the Bill of Rights, whereas UKIP would let bank robbers and terrorists escape justice.

Turning to the amendments, Mrs de Brún explained the amendments on the rights to use European regional or minority languages. While having sympathy with their motivation, I have to oppose them because they do not in fact fit the directive. The test in the directive is one of comprehension and ability to express oneself, as Vice-President Reding said. It is not about the right to choose as such, so there has to be a procedure of verification of the person’s ability to speak and understand and, if they do not accept the language offered, the option would be to challenge the decision. Member State national laws specifying minority language rights are unaffected, although in practice those rights are arguably increased in that if the speaker of a minority language is unable to understand the proceedings then the directive’s rights apply equally to them.

I ask that the directive be passed unamended and quickly so that it gets on the statute book. I look forward to Commission proposals on the further road map measures – the first expected in about a fortnight – and I know that in the hands of our feisty champion, Vice-President Reding, they are in very good hands.

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

  Gerard Batten (EFD). - Madam President, Baroness Ludford has said in the past in these debates that somehow UKIP and I personally want to make life easier for gangsters and bank robbers on the Costa del Sol. She has mentioned that kind of thing again.

Baroness Ludford, can I ask you: do you actually have a figure for the number of criminals and bank robbers who have been returned to Britain from the Costa del Sol since the European Arrest Warrant has been in operation?

  Sarah Ludford, rapporteur. − Madam President, no, but I am sure I can research that and let Mr Batten know the figure.

In return, Mr Batten, can I ask a question of you who, like me, represents London? Hussain Osman, one of the attempted bombers in London in July 2005 escaped to Italy, no doubt hoping to disappear there. In the past, he might have languished for years without being brought back to court. He was brought back within six weeks. He was convicted and he is now serving a sentence under a terrorism conviction. You, I suppose, would have been happy that he would never have been brought back to trial.

  President. − The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Wednesday 16 June 2010.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE), per iscritto. – La proposta di progetto di decisione quadro stabilisce obblighi fondamentali sulla base della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell'uomo e della giurisprudenza della Corte europea. Il diritto all'interpretazione e alla traduzione è fondamentale per chi deve affrontare un'accusa in un procedimento penale e non conosce la lingua del procedimento. Inoltre, in base all'articolo 6 del trattato, l'Unione rispetta i diritti fondamentali quali garantiti dalla Convenzione europea per la salvaguardia dei diritti dell'uomo, che sancisce il diritto a un equo processo.

Il testo oggi in discussione è soddisfacente in un'ottica di compromesso e pienamente accettabile. Nel testo di compromesso, infatti, la Presidenza ha salvaguardato i punti essenziali indicati dagli Stati membri quanto ai costi derivanti dall'attuazione della direttiva e al periodo di trasposizione. Alla luce di ciò, non posso che compiacermi dei risultati raggiunti in sede di Consiglio e di Parlamento europeo: l'interpretazione dovrà essere prodotta nella lingua madre del sospetto o in una lingua che questi conosca, mentre la traduzione riguarderà solo i documenti essenziali e sarà valutata la possibilità di fare dei riassunti orali dei documenti principali.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), per iscritto. – L'Unione europea ha, tra i suoi obiettivi, la creazione di uno spazio unico di giustizia, con norme comuni, un elevato tasso di cooperazione e al contempo garanzie procedurali per le parti. Il discorso è ancora più delicato per quanto riguarda i procedimenti penali, in cui, data la delicatezza della materia e spesso la gravità sia del fatto che della pena, è necessario avere un elevato tasso di certezza giuridica e assicurare il rispetto dei diritti.

Con l'entrata in vigore del trattato di Lisbona, l'Unione europea deve non soltanto rispettare la CEDU, ma anche basarsi su di essa, conformemente alla Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea, per stabilire norme a livello di UE che offrano protezione a indagati e imputati.

In particolare, per quanto riguarda il diritto all'interpretazione e alla traduzione, è fondamentale garantire a tutti gli imputati la possibilità di avere piena conoscenza di tutti gli atti del procedimento e di poter comprendere nonché di potersi esprimere nella propria lingua con la garanzia di disporre di traduzione e interpretazione. È un'esigenza imprescindibile dello spazio unico il fatto che ogni cittadino abbia le stesse facoltà e goda degli stessi diritti e garanzie di quelli di cui beneficia nel proprio paese di origine.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (ECR), na pismie. – Jedno z największych osiągnięć Unii Europejskiej, jakim jest swobodny przepływ osób, a także ciągle trwająca imigracja, niezależnie od swoich zalet, mają też ciemniejszą stronę, jaką jest wzrost liczby przestępstw popełnianych przez cudzoziemców. Gdy osobą podejrzaną jest cudzoziemiec, bariery językowe stanowią istotny problem dla sprawnego przeprowadzenia postępowania karnego. Jeżeli wyroki sądowe mają być bez zastrzeżeń uznawane przez inne państwa Unii, w każdym kraju powinny obowiązywać minimalne gwarancje procesowe. Prawo do zaznajomienia się z oskarżeniem w swoim własnym języku jest niewątpliwie jednym z podstawowych elementów prawa do obrony, bez czego nie można w ogóle mówić o rzetelnym procesie. Projekt dyrektywy o tłumaczeniach w procesie karnym spełnia więc tutaj swoją rolę, niezależnie od tego, że odpowiednie zasady i tak już obowiązują w państwach członkowskich UE. Bardzo się cieszę, że w drodze kompromisu pomiędzy Parlamentem, Radą a Komisją Parlament zrezygnował ostatecznie z wprowadzenia wielu nierozsądnych wymogów, które mogłyby doprowadzić do paraliżu postępowań karnych, zwłaszcza w prostszych sprawach. Jestem przekonany, że projekt dyrektywy w obecnym kształcie przysłuży się do budowania zaufania pomiędzy wymiarami sprawiedliwości państw Unii, przy jednoczesnym poszanowaniu zróżnicowanej tradycji prawnej państw członkowskich.