Honourable Members,
First of all, allow me to thank you kindly for your invitation. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the Austrian Presidency's plans in the field of justice with you today. I regard contact with the EP as being of the utmost importance for interinstitutional cooperation, which is why I am keen to continue and extend it informally as well. I am, in any case, looking forward to good, successful cooperation. After my introductory remarks, I will of course be pleased to take questions from you.
With regard to the programme content, the Austrian Presidency will - in the interests of continuity first of all focus on addressing the work in progress. There are a few very important dossiers to be dealt with, and we naturally wish to make as much progress on these as possible.
The first big event for the Ministers responsible for Justice and Home Affairs was their informal meeting in Vienna from 12 to 14 January 2006, where two important matters in the field of criminal law were addressed. They held a detailed discussion on further development of European criminal law and the fundamental rights of citizens, as well as the matter of briefing the JHA Council on JHA-related matters in other Council configurations.
The fundamental rights of citizens are also addressed in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, which has already been ratified by Austria. The area of freedom, security and justice is described as follows: "the Union shall constitute an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States"(Article III-257(1)).
Allow me first of all to comment further on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. It provides that the Union shall endeavour to ensure a high level of security through measures to prevent and combat crime, racism and xenophobia, and through measures for coordination and cooperation between police and judicial authorities and other competent authorities, as well as through the mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters and, if necessary, through the approximation of criminal laws. Although minimum rules may also be established inter alia for the rights of individuals in criminal procedure and the rights of victims of crime under the chapter on judicial cooperation in criminal matters, such minimum rules must nonetheless always take into account the differences between the legal systems and traditions of the Member States. Furthermore, these provisions must be read and dealt with in conjunction with Part II of the Constitution, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union. This modern catalogue of fundamental rights has hitherto been granted too little importance when conveying the significance of the Constitution for citizens not just in our direct field of activity, but in the field of social policy too. Title II of the Charter sets out the central freedoms: the right to liberty and security, the right to respect for private and family life, and the right to protection of personal data (Article II-67 to Article II-69). Safeguarding these rights is the very essence of what the Union's citizens rightfully expect from an area of freedom, security and justice. The same applies to judicial rights in the Charter (under Title VI), among which I would like to emphasise the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial (Article II-107) as well as the presumption of innocence and the right of defence (Article II-108). I regard the matter of how and by which means the principles are safeguarded to be one of the central questions, especially in the context of mutual recognition. Also, with regard to the recognition and enforcement of judgments of another Member State in an investigation - either requests for search and seizure or for the arrest of an individual - there must be effective guarantees that each plaintiff is innocent until proven guilty and can fully exercise his right of defence. We must acknowledge that confidence in the respective legal systems of the other Member States as the cornerstone of mutual recognition must not be decreed, but instead should be safeguarded via clear provisions on protection of individuals' rights.
In this field, the Austrian Presidency therefore intends to strive for fresh impetus to the negotiations on procedural rights in criminal proceedings. That is also the best way of fulfilling the instruction to take into account the different legal traditions of the Member States. The Austrian Ptresidency therefore intends to secure minimum rules in the procedure for recognition and enforcement of the judgments of other Member States. These rules should ensure that the accused's right to a fair procedure in compliance with the rule of law, as guaranteed in different ways under the different procedural systems, can also be effectively exercised in cases where the investigative authorities of several Member States have cross-border competence. Our central concerns include the right to be heard, access to legal assistance (a defence lawyer), the right to translation and to effective remedy.
So, instead of stalemate, we have a new opportunity to break the deadlock in the Council's discussion on minimum rules in procedural law, a discussion which was also weighed down by doubts about being able to achieve any added value in relation to the obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
I have deliberately referred to protection of the freedoms of the Union's citizens. The Union has hitherto been very successful in protecting security. We are on the right track to achieve a marked improvement in cooperation between law-enforcement and judicial authorities. We are especially well armed in the fight against serious crime and terrorism. This is borne out by initial successes in preventing terrorist attacks. Admittedly, an extension of investigative powers and simplified cross-border exchange of information according to the principle of availability tend to restrict the freedom of the Union's citizens. Here, strong counterbalances are required so that citizens do not begin to feel that - even as innocent people - they are the target of state investigation measures or that their basic rights are being encroached upon.
It is not easy but it is important to strike the right balance between the protection of citizens' security, efficient criminal prosecution and the protection of individuals' freedoms. The Austrian Presidency therefore welcomes the Commission's proposal on data protection under the third pillar as an important counterbalance for the protection of privacy in the Union. It is currently being discussed by the Multidisciplinary Group on Organised Crime. The Union's citizens must be certain that data will only be stored, exchanged and used as far as is necessary and proportionate, and that the appropriate safeguards are in place to guard against excesses or even abuses. You can see from the schedule that Austria is endeavouring to make considerable progress in this area. We are also most interested in having - in addition to a position from the European Data Protection Supervisor - an exchange of views with your Committee on the content of this proposal. It is the beginning of the discussion, so it would be presumptuous to promise completion under the Austrian Presidency. We are, however, striving to resolve as many problems as possible so that political agreement can be reached at least by the end of 2006. The Austrian Presidency also intends to discuss individual matters in detail at least once at political level (at a JHA Council meeting).
At the informal Ministerial meeting an initial discussion at political level also took place on how to proceed further in the field of criminal law after the annulment by means of a judgment of the European Court of Justice of September 2005 of the Framework Decision on the protection of the environment through criminal law. The European Commission submitted a communication on the subject in November 2005. This proposed, inter alia, as a package solution to transform framework decisions that had already been adopted, had already entered into force, or, in some cases, had already been implemented, into directives. I can inform you that the European Commission then abandoned this proposal at the informal Council meeting. A large majority of the Member States spoke out against this course of action. There was general agreement in emphasising that it would have to be examined and assessed in each individual case whether and to what extent a criminal law solution was required under Community law. This pragmatic approach seems appropriate to us, as lengthy and abstract discussions of principle could thus be avoided, and we are, indeed, faced with enough concrete challenges.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I naturally have a particular interest in an initiative put forward by Austria, together with Finland and Sweden, namely the Framework Decision on application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing penalties or measures involving deprivation of liberty. This legal act is intended to put into practice the principle of the execution of penalties in the State of origin in accordance with the principle of mutual recognition. The State of which the convicted person is a national and the State in which the latter has his or her regular and lawful place of residence should be obliged to accept enforcement, provided that there are no specific (limited) grounds for refusal to do so. The intention behind this issue is that the reinsertion of a convicted person in his or her State of origin or of residence should have greater chances of success. In view of its ameliorative purpose, a penalty involving deprivation of liberty should in principle be executed in the State to which the convicted person has particularly close links, for instance social contacts and language. This Framework Decision is being discussed in the Council Working Party on Cooperation in Criminal Law Matters, and we intend to make as much progress as possible with it. One question that is as yet unresolved is that of the convicted person's consent to surrender or of the waiver of such consent. Negotiations in the Council Working Party have hitherto been very constructive, and Austria also successfully conducted bilateral talks last year with some Member States that had reservations of principle. In general, it can be said that the majority of the Member States as well as the European Commission clearly welcome this initiative. One matter that unfortunately could not be brought to a conclusion under the UK Presidency is that of the European Evidence Warrant. Documents, objects and other items of evidence required in criminal proceedings in one Member State should be able to be requested of other Member States by means of a form, and thus more readily than before. This would make it possible to simplify and expedite proceedings. Here the Austrian Presidency is currently in the process of conducting talks with the few Member States that still have problems with regard to certain points of the document. We shall make every effort to reach political agreement on this matter in the near future.
An essential goal in enhancing police and judicial cooperation is to speed up the exchange of information concerning convictions or from criminal records. Previous convictions handed down in another Member State should be able to be taken into account in fresh criminal proceedings, particularly before sentencing. This is the purpose of a Framework Decision that has been put forward, which sets such convictions on an equal footing with each Member State's own national convictions. The pre-condition for this is also that such information can be transmitted between the Member States as rapidly as possible, and the European Commission has also submitted a Framework Decision on this matter. The Austrian Presidency will initiate negotiations on both documents, as we are convinced that information concerning previous convictions constitutes an important basis for ensuring that penalties are proportionate in each individual case, which should be achieved rapidly and simply.
Further approximation of criminal law provisions should take place in the field of copyright. A Framework Decision and a Directive have been submitted by the European Commission, and discussions on the matter in the Council Working Party on Substantive Criminal Law are already under way. Irrespective of whether individual provisions will ultimately be included in a directive or in a framework decision, the content of these proposals has been put forward for discussion by the Austrian Presidency.
I shall also be attending the meeting of your Committee on Legal Affairs next week, and shall then be speaking in detail about civil law matters, but would like to inform you very briefly here about the priorities for judicial cooperation in civil matters. In the case of the European order for payment procedure, which I view as an extremely important step in expediting and simplifying proceedings, we are endeavouring to ensure that a joint position is adopted in the Council of JHA Ministers in February. One of the Austrian Presidency's priorities is also the Rome II Regulation (Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations). On this matter, the Austrian Presidency intends to reach political agreement at the JHA Council meeting in February or April. A further priority is the Regulation on the European small claims procedure, in order to contribute towards simplifying court proceedings for citizens; on this, as well as on the revision of the European Regulation on the service of documents, the Austrian Presidency is taking forward proceedings at Council Working Party level.
Before continuing work on the proposal for a Directive on mediation, we intend to await the European Parliament's opinion which is expected for April this year.
The negotiations on Rome I and on the legal act on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations will be resumed by the Austrian Presidency, but they cannot realistically be expected to be concluded.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
So much for an initial overview of the Austrian Presidency's main concerns in the field of criminal law. I would assure you of our ambition to spur the Member States on to intensive work so as to make as much progress as possible with the issues pending, above all in the areas I have addressed.
Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to our further discussions.
Email Service
Accreditation
Hotel Reservation
Route Planner
Weather