Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank you for the information you have provided, but unfortunately I do not think you have responded to the oral question tabled by my group. It remains outstanding. Clearly the agreement before us is especially relevant for both the European Union and the United States. The United States has decided to foster closer cooperation, especially in relation to the fight against organised crime. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, as rapporteur I therefore feel we must welcome this type of initiative. I am especially pleased that for the first time the European Union is going to sign an agreement on cooperation on judicial and criminal matters. This should serve as a model in arriving at similar agreements with other third countries. I would however like to provide some additional details on three issues. Will this agreement make the fight against organised crime more effective? As I understand it, it will. This level of cooperation will clearly help the fight against money laundering, trafficking in human beings, drug trafficking and terrorism. Will this agreement reinforce the European Judicial Area? I think it will inasmuch as it will oblige Member States and candidate countries to speed up the ratification of the European texts that form the basis of this agreement. These texts include the protocol on money laundering and the decision on the detention and surrender procedure and on joint investigation teams. The third question is whether these texts represent added value over and above the bilateral agreements currently in force. I have to say that the answer to this question is also affirmative. As regards existing agreements, the new agreement will streamline cooperation and provide for increased guarantees to be given in the interests of those accused. Nevertheless, I feel I must draw the attention of the Presidency of the Council to the doubts expressed by Parliament, as reflected in the question that led to this statement. Firstly, we want to be sure that the same guarantees offered by the European arrest warrant would apply in the case of the United States issuing a request for extradition. The second issue concerns the doubts over whether a Member State has the capacity to decide if a person should be sent to the United States or referred to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Although there is an explanatory note on this in the text of the agreement on the International Criminal Court, as you mentioned, we believe it would have been much clearer if this reference had been inserted into the text of the agreement. This would have eliminated the uncertainty on the subject and made it quite clear that a Member State may take that decision. The third issue relates to procedure. I would like to highlight a positive and also a negative aspect of this subject. Firstly, we would like to thank the Greek Presidency for publishing the text of this international agreement before it had even been signed. This allowed Parliament to consider its contents. An important precedent has been set. Nonetheless, this cannot be deemed adequate in terms of democratic control. I will move on to outline the negative aspect. To date, the European Parliament has never been consulted on any similar international agreements, even when they concerned fundamental aspects of foreign policy and cooperation on judicial matters. In our opinion this is unacceptable. Furthermore, unfortunately agreements of this type do not have to be ratified either by national parliaments or by this House. When neither the European Parliament nor national parliaments are involved, how can we say that the European Union’s actions in this regard are in line with the democratic principles on which it is based under Article 6 of the EU Treaty? This is why it is appropriate for the European Parliament to be consulted and not merely informed, as you have said. We feel this is a central and highly relevant issue. I communicated this to the Presidency of the Council in a letter sent in December last year. I could not understand why I did not receive a reply. I also made the current President-in-Office of the Council aware of the strength of feeling when the latter appeared before meetings of the committee I chair. Mr President-in-Office of the Council, the liberties and fundamental interests of the citizen’s of Europe are at stake. We are dealing with judicial and criminal cooperation, a subject on which the Treaty provides for a closer level of cooperation than that provided for by the Common Foreign and Security Policy. I would therefore like you to reconsider your position should no consultation be allowed for. I also call upon you to convey Parliament’s opinion on this matter to the Council. I have communicated this opinion to you in the strongest terms. If our message is not brought before the Council, Parliament would have to consider the possibility of taking its case to the Court of Justice. Lastly, I would like to thank the Presidency once again for the positive attitude it has shown in relation to such a sensitive dossier, as demonstrated by your presence in the House. (Applause)

Political group: PPE-DE