Brussels, 04/05/2010 (Agence Europe) - MEPs are eager to move swiftly on with the draft directive on victim protection at a European level, presented by the Spanish Presidency at the beginning of the year. During a joint meeting between the women's rights and civil liberties committees, MEPs questioned the Council and the Commission on an issue which has brought them into conflict with regard to the legal basis of the proposal (EUROPE 10125). The proposal on the European protection initiative aims to continue to provide protection in a member state that is not necessarily the member state in which the victim was originally granted protection. A European protection order awarded by a member state would be recognised in all EU countries.
The Presidency continues to move forward. Speaking on behalf of the Spanish Presidency, Juan José Cobo Molinos, indicated that the objective of this initiative (which is now supported by around 15 member states) is victim protection, particularly the protection of women who have been victims of domestic violence. He underlined that “these protection measures exist in all member states, but they stop when someone crosses the border. This is a perverse fact that needs to be corrected”, he emphasised. “In most member states' views protection measures are issued under a criminal proceeding, in others under a civil proceeding, but the aim is the same, to protect victims”, he underlined. “A woman travelling from Germany to Spain doesn't care if the protection measure is issued by a civil court or by a criminal court. She just wants to be protected", he added. In a reference to the legal basis, Cobo Molinos recognised that the Spanish Presidency was encountering obstacles. The link between legal cooperation in criminal matters is very clear in the text, he explained. “A first step has to be taken" with this proposal, "but others may follow", he added. He concluded: "If the result displeases the Commission, let it go to the European Court of Justice".
Commission warning. "There is no doubt there is a need for a legislative solution, but it should be a clear one. We have to get this right", said Jonathan Faull, on behalf of the European Commission. The Treaty makes a clear distinction between criminal and civil law, there are different rules and the legal traditions of the member states are different, he explained. "I know it sounds almost disgraceful to talk about legal technicalities ... but in one or two years' time this will not work" as it is, he predicted. "Our suggestion is that we proceed with this proposal limiting its scope to criminal proceedings" and that the Commission present a far more far-reaching proposal on protection of victims in the beginning of 2011. "The legislative measure as proposed by Council could collapse if we don't do it properly under the law", he concluded.
Parliament insists on victim protection. Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio MEP (EPP, Spain) believes that it is possible to achieve an agreement on the European protection order and for it to be applicable in all member states. The women's rights committee rapporteur declared that "Parliament should not be held hostage of Council and the Commission", adding, "We should not create legal problems" but "guaranteed protection" of victims. "We don't want to offer false hopes to victims of crime ... we need to make sure we work on a good basis and arrive at a solution on the behalf the victims". In view of the potential victims, Carmen Romero López (S & D, Spain), rapporteur for the civil liberties committee, said that they should devise a strict timetable, adding, “the Council proposal is interesting and has been given a warm welcome by all women's groups dealing with this kind of situation”. She also asserted that they wanted the Commission to understand that they were talking about an urgent situation. With regard to concerns about the legal basis, the MEP said that she was convinced that it would be possible to improve the text, thanks to the Parliament. Simon Busuttil (EPP, Malta) said that he was very disappointed and frustrated with what had been presented. “Let them take us to court is not a serious way to follow", he considered. "Both institutions should go back to the drawing boards, get their proposals in order and then come back to us with something coherent". We should ask legal advice on this and we should not adopt legislation which would be taken to court”. In conclusion to the debate Cobo Molinos declared: “The Commission wants to instruments: on for criminal and one for civil proceedings. That's impossible! Both systems have to be combined". "The Council didn't start this war. It has made efforts to come closer to the Commission. The Presidency did what it could". According to the Spanish representative, "it is a bit optimistic" that the Commission will present its proposal at the beginning of 2011. Faull announced that the Commission would hold a meeting with experts from the member states on 21 May 2010. “We have to get the law right. As guardian of the Treaty, we are warning you: this proposal is a mistake. This is half baked and it will only have half-impact", he warned. He concluded: “Patchwork is not what we want to offer victims of crime. They deserve better". (B.C./transl.fl)