Istungi stenogramm

Teisipäev, 16. aprill 2019 - Strasbourg

26. Julian Assange'i võimalik väljaandmine (arutelu)

  Elnök asszony. – A következő pont a Tanács és a Bizottság nyilatkozatai Julian Assange lehetséges kiadatásáról (2019/2704(RSP)).

  Melania Gabriela Ciot, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, thank you for this opportunity to discuss the issue of the possible extradition of Julian Assange. We are all aware that, when acting for the purpose of protecting the general public interest, whistle—blowers play an essential role by disclosing wrongdoing and dangers to society. Therefore they deserve legal protection. I know you discussed this yesterday in the debate on the whistle—blowers’ directive. We have all been following recent events related to Mr Assange’s case.

Julian Assange took refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in 2012 to avoid being taken to Sweden to be questioned on charges of rape, molestation and unlawful coercion. He argued that his asylum claim aimed to prevent his being ultimately extradited to the United States and put on trial for publishing thousands and thousands of classified US documents.

As you all know, on 11 April, Ecuador withdrew Mr Assange’s asylum, which led to his arrest by the British police. Westminster Magistrates’ Court subsequently found him guilty on British charges of breaching bail. In addition to charges in the United Kingdom, Mr Assange currently faces charges in the United States, and the Swedish judicial authorities have indicated that investigations may be resumed into charges of rape against him.

Let me clearly point out that the Council as such has not discussed the issue of Mr Assange’s possible extradition and does not have a position on it. As a matter of fact, extraditions are a matter of the exclusive competence of Member States. Therefore, the matter now lies in the hands of the British judiciary and of the UK Home Secretary.

But let me take this opportunity to stress once more that the Council attaches very high importance to the protection of whistle—blowers. As a matter of fact, during the last month, Parliament and the Council focused their efforts on ensuring that an agreement on the whistle—blowers’ directive was reached before the end of the current legislative term. That objective was achieved and this plenary voted today on the text agreed by the negotiators of the two co—legislators.

  Věra Jourová, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, the European Parliament asked the Commission to make a statement on the possible extradition of Julian Assange from the United Kingdom.

We can inform you that extradition between the United Kingdom and the United States is governed by a bilateral treaty and a subsequent EU-US extradition agreement. The latter does not allow extradition in cases where there are reasons to believe it may lead to the application of the death penalty. In addition, the Court of Justice has also decided that a Member State must refrain from an extradition if there are serious risks that fundamental rights of the suspect are affected.

If Sweden decides to issue a new European arrest warrant following the one that it had revoked in 2017, the UK court would have to consider whether to give precedence to this European arrest warrant over the US extradition request. There are no clear-cut EU rules in this respect but rather a list of factors to be taken into account by the court.

As a general remark, I must note that the European Commission does not have the competence to intervene on judicial proceedings pending in front of the courts of Member States. We fully rely on the independence and professionalism of the UK courts to take the right decision, having in front of them the appropriate evidence.

  Jiří Pospíšil, za skupinu PPE. – Paní předsedající, já chci potvrdit slova paní komisařky, já v zásadě vůbec nechápu, proč tento bod projednáváme na půdě Parlamentu. Tady jde o konkrétní trestní kauzu, konkrétní extradici, o té se bude rozhodovat podle mezinárodních smluv o extradici. Na jedné straně bude rozhodovat britský justiční systém, na druhé straně jsou Spojené státy americké jako země, která žádá o vydání. Obě země jsou právními státy, není pochyby o tom, že tedy ten proces proběhne řádně, podle mezinárodních smluv při respektu principu právního státu.

My jako politici si můžeme myslet o skutcích pana Assange určitou věc, můžeme to buď schvalovat, nebo odsuzovat. Já osobně s jeho skutky nesouhlasím. Domnívám se, že svoboda projevu má své limity a nemůže ohrožovat státní tajemství. A v případě třeba aktivit pana Assange pak vojáky, kteří bojují proti mezinárodnímu terorismu. Ale to je můj politický názor. A to, zda pan Assange spáchal trestný čin, musí rozhodovat jenom soudy. To je naše základní stanovisko. Je tedy správné, že Evropská komise jako politický orgán nemá žádné pravomoci, kterými by mohla nějakým způsobem zasahovat do justičního systému jednoho z členských států.

Takže prosím: nechme to na britských soudech, aby danou věc procesně posoudily, aby zvážily, zda jsou splněny důvody k extradici. Pokud ano, bude pan Assange vydán do Spojených států amerických. Já plně věřím americké justici, že věc posoudí, zda pro mě nepřijatelné jednání pana Assange je případně i trestným činem.

  Ana Gomes, em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhora Presidente, a extradição de Julian Assange para os Estados Unidos deve ser impedida. Só assim poderemos garantir que a Europa protege quem defende transparência e verdade e quem quer exprimir-se em sociedades livres e plurais.

Com uma Administração como a de Trump, que faz dos media alvo de estimação, Assange nunca teria julgamento imparcial. O julgamento nos Estados Unidos seria instrumentalizável para a destruição da liberdade de imprensa e de expressão, como dizem organizações como a Human Rights Watch e a ACLU.

Assange correria riscos de ser condenado à pena capital. É só ver o que pena hoje a fonte de Assange, Chelsea Manning, sob tortura em confinamento na prisão. Julian Assange deu decisivos contributos para revelar a verdade. Revelou atrocidades no Iraque e no Afeganistão e outros crimes em Guantánamo e nas prisões secretas, e a podridão, a hipocrisia e a criminalidade em sucessivas administrações americanas e até também em governos cúmplices, incluindo na Europa.

Eu própria beneficiei das revelações do WikiLeaks. O ministro que me acusou de enganar quando entreguei à comissão de inquérito do Parlamento Europeu as listas de voos da tortura cometidos pela CIA e de militares que foram autorizados por Portugal com destino e origem em Guantánamo acabou exposto como um rematado mentiroso pelo WikiLeaks. Mas se Julian Assange enfrenta as acusações de crime que lhe são feitas na Suécia, deve responder por essas acusações na Justiça sueca que oferece garantias de imparcialidade. Importa dizer que confiamos na independência dos tribunais do Reino Unido e da Suécia, mas, ao mesmo tempo, pedir-lhes que não cedam às pressões de extradição para os Estados Unidos.

Não desvalorizo, e devo dizer que me inquieta, que um Julian Assange perturbado por sete anos de enclausuramento na embaixada do Equador, país que acabou por o entregar, violando o direito de asilo concedido, possa ter colaborado com a cleptocracia de Putin para interferir nas eleições americanas e atacar o Partido Democrático, como poderá indiciar o procurador especial Muller. Mas é aos tribunais europeus dos Estados-Membros da União Europeia que cabe a responsabilidade de julgar Assange e garantir-lhe justiça, e desde já a proteção como whistleblower na linha da diretiva que hoje acabámos também de aprovar.

Proteger Assange é afirmar e proteger os valores e princípios europeus, as garantias dos direitos fundamentais aos acusados em justiça, é dar esperança a todos os que arriscam as vidas pela verdade, pela integridade e contra a criminalidade que tudo infiltra e até captura governos.

Julian Assange merece essa proteção e merece beneficiar de todos esses direitos fundamentais na União Europeia.

O orador aceita responder a uma pergunta "cartão azul" – artigo 162.°, n.° 8, do Regimento

  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE), otázka položená zvednutím modré karty. – Paní kolegyně, já jsem se zájmem vyslechl Vaše vystoupení a jako bývalý ministr spravedlnosti se ptám: Jak může Parlament jako politické těleso zasahovat do konkrétní trestní kauzy a konkrétní extradice? My na toto jednání můžeme mít určitý názor, já mám třeba jiný, ale toto je extradiční trestní kauza a my jsme politici. My přece nemůžeme nějakým způsobem „chránit“ – Vy jste tento termín použila – a zasahovat do soudního řízení v zemi, kde ta extradice probíhá. Můj dotaz proto zní: Jak byste ho chtěla chránit?

  Ana Gomes (S&D), blue-card answer. – (inaudible) … we know that no European country should extradite to a country that has the death penalty. That’s exactly the case of the United States, I’m very sorry. Indeed Assange, if extradited to the United States, could face an accusation of spying, which would entail the death penalty. That’s a very strong reason – political and juridical – why he shouldn’t be extradited by a court, be it in the UK, in Sweden or in your own country.

(Applause)

  Miguel Urbán Crespo, en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señora presidenta, la detención de Julian Assange marca un momento muy oscuro para la libertad de la información: su detención, nos afecta a todas y a todos.

Los datos que se han hecho públicos gracias a Julian Assange y WikiLeaks, han permitido desvelar crímenes de guerra, asesinatos de periodistas y numerosas violaciones de derechos humanos en el mundo.

El Grupo de Trabajo sobre la Detención Arbitraria consideró ilegal la detención de Assange. Asimismo, la relatora especial de las Naciones Unidas sobre ejecuciones extrajudiciales alertaba sobre los peligros de la extradición de Julian Assange a Estados Unidos.

Hoy hemos aprobado en esta Cámara una Directiva para la protección de filtradores como Julian Assange. Exijamos que se cumpla.

La extradición de Julian Assange mandaría un mensaje muy peligroso. Quienes se enfrentan a la corrupción, quienes se enfrentan a los abusos del poder, lo pagan caro.

Si permitimos que Julian Assange sea extraditado a los Estados Unidos, estaremos renunciando a una parte fundamental de nuestra democracia, estaremos renunciando al derecho a la información.

No lo permitamos, señorías.

  Eva Joly, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, en débattant de la possible extradition de Julian Assange, le fondateur de WikiLeaks, vers les États-Unis, nous n’abordons pas seulement le sort d’un homme, nous esquissons aussi l’avenir de nos démocraties. Nous devons défendre haut et fort la liberté d’information et la transparence, car c’est de cela qu'il s’agit. Julian Assange a rendu publiques des informations qui dérangent, notamment sur des crimes de guerre perpétrés par les États-Unis. Plutôt que de rendre compte de leurs crimes, les gouvernements veulent faire taire les voix qui s’élèvent. Nous devons opposer à cela notre attachement intact à des démocraties ouvertes, transparentes et responsables de leurs actes. C’est son courage qui est jugé aujourd’hui. Si nous acceptons d’extrader Assange, nous extraderons demain tous ceux qui publient des informations sensibles: les journalistes du Guardian, du Monde, du Spiegel qui ont publié les documents fuités par WikiLeaks. La France doit accorder l’asile à Julian Assange et défendre les couleurs de la transparence.

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Madam President, let us start off with one proposition. It is not a good idea for politicians to seek to intervene in the legal process. In fact it’s a very bad idea. The separation of politics and law is central to western democracy. In the case of Mr Julian Assange, he was taken into custody, came before a court and sentenced, because he was found guilty of jumping bail. There are entirely separate charges of hacking and the like that have been filed against him in the United States. It is these charges that are to be the subject of an extradition hearing. The hearing will take place before an English judge, and what the Council said was factually wrong: the Home Secretary does not decide. Many people, including me, have disliked and disagreed with some rulings of judges in the UK, but no serious person doubts the objectivity and professionalism of the English judiciary. Nevertheless, Ms Gomes and other colleagues want the legal process to be subject to political interference. This is my last speech in the Parliament, but I have to disagree. To debase the legal process to politics is entirely contrary not just to Western values but, Ms Joly, to all the institutions of democracy. We as politicians should leave the legal matter of Julian Assange well alone.

Now, what were the original legal proceedings that caused Mr Assange to jump bail? Well, it was the European arrest warrant, and this warrant was brought not by a Swedish judge but by the Swedish prosecutor. Despite this, with the European arrest warrant there is no real defence against extradition, and this is very worrying. We hear a lot in this place about human rights, but it is the S&D, the ALDE Group, the British Liberal Democrats – all the unthinking supporters of a European superstate – who are also the same people who are big supporters of the European arrest warrant. Their commitment to civil liberties and the European arrest warrant is highly flawed, as it probably was in the case of Mr Assange. Your commitment to civil liberties and legal due process comes to a grinding halt at Calais, and all in the name of yet more integration. If only these people would think again, and I beg you and urge you to do so.

  Stelios Kouloglou (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, well I have listened to Pontius Pilate today. We are in favour of whistle—blowers but we have no competence at all – neither the Council nor the Commission. But here we are a political body, we can have our political opinion about the facts. Listen to what’s happening. Let’s say a European journalist writes something or makes a disclosure on Iran. If Assange is extradited then there is a precedent. Iran – or Turkey – will be able to demand the extradition of the European journalist, or capture or kidnap the European journalist!

What are you going to say? Because they will say that he or she violated the secrets of Iran or Turkey or whatever. So don’t play Pontius Pilate when freedom of information and whistle—blowers are crucified.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

  Ana Gomes (S&D), blue-card question. – I agree with my colleague Kouloglou that, indeed, this is a political body and we are entitled to make a political judgment, and we are doing that, saying that there should be no extradition to the US. But, on the other hand, we are expecting that the courts – namely in the UK, that fortunately is still and will stay in the EU – are bound by the Charter of Fundamental Rights and by the European Union Treaties. Therefore, it’s on the basis of juridical legal grounds, and not political grounds, that a resolution is expected to prevent extradition to a country that still has capital punishment. Do you agree, Mr Kouloglou?

  Stelios Kouloglou (GUE/NGL), blue-card answer. – I fully agree. We have to make a statement. We have made statements and statements and statements, about Venezuela, Turkey, about everything.

And you are talking my colleague about the legal procedure. Was the legal procedure respected in the case of other countries? We are making interventions. We are making statements. Why not now? Why? Because the British Government is in a mess because of Brexit, and now the government is trying to escape with an Assange exit.

This is not fair. This is not right. You are a politician and you have to take a position. You are either against the extradition or for it.

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFDD). – Madam President, I very much appreciate you giving me the opportunity to respond. It is a legal matter; that is it. Period. It is a legal matter.

Now if you’re an advocate of politicians’ interfering and intervening in legal due process that is a perfectly understandable and legitimate point of view, although one that I don’t happen to agree with, but that is your privilege. That is your privilege to argue that, but it is completely contrary to the way in which Western democracy and democratic institutions are organised. The separation of the executive and the judiciary is absolutely fundamental.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

  Stelios Kouloglou (GUE/NGL), blue-card question. – I would like to ask this question of my colleague, William (The Earl of) Dartmouth. What about the processes in Turkey? Is Turkey right when it says that this is a legal action and you have to respect the legal procedure in Turkey and not interfere? Then why have we done so many statements against processes in Turkey? Why?

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFDD), blue-card answer. – I’ll answer in just a few seconds. What colleagues are advocating is that the British government intervenes in the judicial process in England. What you’re advocating about Turkey is that we intervene or seek to intervene.

I entirely agree with you on your criticisms of Turkey and I only wish my government and other governments would make it clear that Turkey will never become a Member of the European Union, irrespective of whether the UK is a Member or not.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, este lunes tenía una cita con Julian Assange en la embajada de Ecuador en Londres. No fui, porque fue arrestado. Pero fui igualmente a esa ciudad a denunciar la vulneración de su derecho al asilo, enfrente de la cárcel de Belmarsh.

El derecho al asilo significa protección de la pena de muerte y protección integral de derechos. El asilo otorgado por Ecuador a Assange no es solo para salvarlo de una silla eléctrica, sino para protegerlo de la cárcel por ejercer el derecho a la libertad de prensa en un país donde no tendría un juicio justo.

El traidor Gobierno de Lenin Moreno se ha vendido. Y ha degradado el principio de asilo que protege la integralidad de los derechos del asilado, aceptando una cadena perpetua o largas décadas de confinamiento en una cárcel norteamericana para alguien cuyo delito ha sido publicar abusos de poder y violaciones de lesa humanidad.

El Gobierno británico no está exigiendo las garantías a los Estados Unidos sobre la no aplicación final de la pena de muerte, por lo que las cartas exhibidas por la cancillería de Ecuador, en las que afirman que sus pares británicos citan una estipulación sobre no extradición en casos de pena de muerte, no constituyen ni compromiso ni garantía de no extraditar a Julian Assange a los Estados Unidos.

El Reino Unido nunca ofreció ninguna garantía de no extradición, y denunciamos en este Parlamento que Ecuador, el Reino Unido y los Estados Unidos coordinaron la entrega de Assange.

Lo que está ocurriendo, señora comisaria, es muy grave. Ataca a la libertad de prensa y de expresión. Assange no debe ser extraditado a los Estados Unidos. Si él es extraditado, cualquier periodista denunciante está en peligro. En peligro por denunciar injusticias, corrupción y abuso de poder.

„Catch the eye” eljárás

  Kateřina Konečná (GUE/NGL). – Paní předsedající, dnes jsme zde odhlasovali směrnici, ve které se mimo jiné praví toto: „Oznamovatelé hrají klíčovou úlohu při odhalování případů porušení práva, při nichž je poškozován veřejný zájem, a jejich předcházení, jakož i zajišťování blaha společnosti jako celku.“ To jsme dnes odhlasovali. V této souvislosti považuji za nutné zdůraznit, že všechny velké skandály, které byly odhaleny veřejností od roku 2014, jako například Luxleaks nebo Panama Papers, vyšly najevo díky jednání oznamovatelů a byly zcela očividně ve veřejném zájmu. Je mi upřímně zcela jedno, jestli je pro vás Julian Assange hrdinou či dezertérem, zda zrádcem či bojovníkem za svobodu slova. To v současné situaci považuji za podružné. Za jediné opravdu zásadní považuji, že pokud chceme chránit oznamovatele, musíme chránit Assange. Ten má být vydán do země, na jejíž zločiny upozornil a ve které je v současnosti prezidentem někdo, kdo považuje novináře za nepřátele lidu. Nevěřím, že by se mu tam dostalo spravedlivého soudu.

(„Catch the eye” eljárás vége)

  Věra Jourová, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, thank you very much for this discussion. I would like to repeat that we fully rely on the independence and professionalism of the courts in the United Kingdom. And I remain convinced that the fundamental rights and the right to a fair trial will be fully respected in the decision of the court.

  Melania Gabriela Ciot, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, to conclude, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to debate this topical issue of high importance. We will all closely follow the developments of Mr Assange’s case. Thank you very much once again for your attention.

  Elnök asszony. – A vitát lezárom.