Mr President, I would first like to stress that I am speaking on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party, as this is a special report, because of the subject, because of its importance and because of something that the rapporteur highlights: it is a report to which there have been very few amendments in committee and none in the plenary sitting, which is by no means usual, particularly with reports from the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, and this, Mr President, is due to the rapporteur. It is your report, rapporteur, but all of us, and of course the Group of the European People’s Party, see ourselves in it, which is why I want to highlight two major issues. The first is that, if the European Union faces one challenge at the moment, if we really want to move from a market-centred Europe to a Europe of values and of citizens, that challenge is to build this area of justice. And if this is a big challenge, what can be more important, in this context, than for a rapporteur to take up the great tradition that has built Europe? This great tradition that has led to men and women from different origins, different political ideologies and different parties, placing this general vision, this European vision, this constructive vision, above their individual interests, and combining their efforts in pursuit of a goal. We have before us one of those reports, and I think that this House should be proud to have produced a report which will be the point of reference over the months and years, for the work that awaits the institutions: the Commission, the Council and Parliament. It is a report that, like all great reports, combines vision, realism and ambition. The rapporteur used the word ‘vision’, and I am going to do nothing more than repeat what he said, but this is the essence of the report: it firmly backs mutual recognition. Mutual recognition, which is also based on the principle underpinning the European Union, namely mutual trust between States, which is in turn based on the Member States providing an equivalent level of protection of human rights, and in which they are seen to share the same procedures. Obviously, there are differences, and there are differences that need to be preserved; and that is where the rapporteur’s experience, realism and knowledge of the field come in. I could quote many examples. I have personally learnt a great deal from his thoughts on the scope of dual indictment, which he very rightly extends to dual criminality, and I hope that this will be a subject for discussion in the work that follows. In particular, the rapporteur mentioned the principle of ne bis in idem or double jeopardy and the solution that it offers to this considerable problem. I would also cite Paragraph 22, which refers to the need for common minimum standards for certain aspects of procedural law. As he said, we cannot expect them to be automatically recognised tomorrow without any controls or filters, but we need to move towards the recognition of some common minimum standards that will allow acceptance by means of a very rapid procedure. In other words, the rapporteur says ‘no’ to harmonisation, ‘yes’ to mutual trust and ‘yes’ to mutual recognition, but on some points there will have to be harmonisation, if not unification. I could also quote the comment made by Mr Posselt, that in Europe some conduct needs to be kept outside this context of mutual recognition, because it is based on very different cultural roots, such as euthanasia for example. I think that we have before us an important report. I am sure that it will receive overwhelming support in Parliament, and I hope that the two or three institutions take good note of this report, which without a shadow of a doubt, will be a milestone in this area in which we need to make progress. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE