Summary: Speech by Vice President of the European Commission Frattini : "Protection of fundamental rights in Europe- First lessons drawn from 'rendition'" (Strasbourg: 27 June 2006)
First I would like to congratulate Mr Marty and his team on the considerable task they have accomplished. This is an important step in the investigation process at European level.
From the outset the Commission has supported and encouraged the work of the Council of Europe, whether it be led by Dick Marty or Terry Davis. We have given similar backing to the European Parliament's Temporary Committee of Inquiry. Given the seriousness of the allegations, it was more important than ever to demonstrate that the Council of Europe and the Commission could work hand in hand and pool their resources in order to shed full light on this affair. My presence before you today bears witness to the exemplary cooperation that has been established between European institutions.
The Commission's support for the work of the CEPA has assumed a number of practical forms. We have successfully backed up Mr Marty's requests to the EU Satellite Centre and Eurocontrol to obtain satellite images and information on flights, which has proved invaluable for the investigations. At political level I have repeatedly - both in bilateral contacts and in the Justice and Home Affairs Council - encouraged the Member States and candidate countries to cooperate fully with the investigations of the Council of Europe and the European Parliament.
One valuable result of Mr Marty's investigation has been to provide Member States with some answers to questions that transcend national borders. For example, information on flights could not be analysed and cross-checked effectively by a single Member State acting in isolation. Another vital contribution is that it has spurred a movement to seek out the truth that legitimises and encourages the efforts being carried out at national level and makes national investigators feel less isolated. The direct link between the Parliamentary Assembly and national parliaments undoubtedly plays a key role in sustaining this momentum.
I would like to dwell here on two aspects of Mr Marty's report which I consider to be essential. First, Mr Marty rightly insists on the need for the Member States to conduct rigorous investigations. It is in everyone's interests that action be taken on this positive obligation - arising from the European Convention on Human Rights - whatever the truth that emerges. I have also appealed several times to the Member States and candidate countries to employ all their national legal instruments in order to ascertain the truth. It is essential that the States concerned clarify the situation in their own countries in the light of the initial findings of the investigations carried out at European level. The Commission will continue to support these efforts and welcomes the fact that judicial or parliamentary investigations are under way in some States. Moreover, it is clear that the only way of pursuing efforts to identify the various parties which may be responsible is in the context of rigorous procedural guarantees, entrusted - if all the conditions are met - to judges who are independent and free of political constraints. According to the principle of the rule of law, the accusing party must prove the facts and offer the accused the broadest defence guarantees, until such time as a judge has finally ascertained the truth and drawn conclusions from his decision.
The merit of the Marty investigation is precisely in having highlighted the fact that there has been no over-arching European prosecutor or court, but a valuable contribution to the quest for truth, with the authorities responsible in each case given their say, provided that the guarantees and criteria of procedural law are observed.
A second point that emerges from the work of Mr Marty is that his aim is not to draw up an "indictment" against one country or another, but to ensure that the illegal activities in question do not recur in future. This is a constructive approach that sets out to draw lessons in order to ensure more effective protection of fundamental rights in Europe.
The investigations at European level are not yet fully complete. Dick Marty is proposing that an ad hoc subcommittee be set up to pursue inquiries, and Parliament's Temporary Committee intends to continue its work for another six months. However, without anticipating the final outcome of the process still under way, it is important to think right now about what we could do at European level to prevent this type of situation arising in future.
First of all, it should be clear that the exemplary "Inter European" coordination that has been put in place between our institutions at the investigative stage should continue when it comes to defining what action to take. Within the scope of its powers, each institution must examine what measures are necessary and feasible, while taking care to ensure a coordinated and coherent European approach.
At this stage, the work of the Council of Europe and the European Parliament has highlighted the issues of the role of the intelligence services and the use of European countries' airspace.
The intelligence services issue is a sensitive one that is primarily a matter for the Member States. The nature of the EU's powers and political realism leave little scope for action at Union level. However, this should not stop us from looking at the extent to which the EU can deliver added value and ensure that cooperation between intelligence services - a key factor in combating terrorism - is conducted with full respect for fundamental rights and the principle of the rule of law. I believe that a political signal can be given to the Member States: the reform of intelligence and security services, which obviously comes under the sole jurisdiction of the Member States, should draw on maximum powers of coordination between Heads of Government and tighter Parliamentary scrutiny, particularly as regards the financial resources concerned; at the same time the legal limits on operational action by agents of these services should be spelled out, so that the agents themselves enjoy full guarantees when acting within these limits, and personal responsibility can be traced clearly as soon as the limits are exceeded.
On the question of controls on airspace and European airports, we could launch a discussion within the Commission to determine what contribution could be made in the context of related policies, particularly as regards civil aviation. This discussion, forming part of a wider examination of the problems raised by non commercial civil aviation, could focus among other things on the extent to which the definition of "state aircraft" could be clarified at EU level.
Finally, the 2003 agreements between the EU and the USA on extradition and judicial cooperation constitute another major area where the Union can take action. These agreements show that it is possible to cooperate in a legal framework that respects fundamental rights and mark the EU's first steps as a single entity in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. It is more vital than ever that pressure be brought to bear on our Member States to complete the ratification process.
More generally, it is essential that we step up our dialogue with the USA, which, as your draft resolution stresses, is a long-standing ally in our resistance against tyranny and defence of human rights. In the current climate of doubt, it is vital that we intensify our cooperation. Faced with the permanent and serious threat of international terrorism, it is unthinkable that the European Union and the United States should act out of step with each other. Differences in legal rules and social and political traditions are not enough to diminish the identity of our common values of freedom and democracy. So it is important that the US authorities cooperate fully with your work and with that of the European Parliament.
It is important to reiterate, on both sides of the Atlantic, our determination to combat terrorism, while respecting fundamental rights. What is more, the two must go hand in hand. The firmer our guarantees that we shall respect fundamental rights, the better our chances of making effective advances in the fight against terrorism.
Lastly, I can confirm that the Commission will continue to lend its full support to your efforts.
| Top |
European Union Member States
Alerts by email
Email this page
Print this page