Carlos Segovia
Updated Saturday, February 3, 2024-01:52
EU The socialists tried to 'strain' an amendment in the European Parliament to shield the amnesty for Puigdemont
Lower House Congressional lawyers believe that this amnesty cannot be voted on again
Ramona Strugariu (Barlad, Romania, 1979) has been the rapporteur in charge of drafting the position of the Justice Commission of the European Parliament on the new anti-corruption directive. She has been an MEP for Renew (the liberal group to which Ciudadanos belongs) since 2019 and pushed forward on Thursday to include the amendment for the prohibition of amnesties and pardons in the EU - defended in the negotiation especially by the PP and Vox - after facing proposals like the socialists who, in their opinion, watered down the directive.
Why is the Justice Committee of the European Parliament in favor of prohibiting amnesties for embezzlers in the EU? Because corruption is a plague. When you hold public office and misappropriate public money, it is a betrayal of taxpayers and a huge problem. And it doesn't just affect one person. It affects everyone. I have seen many people take to the streets in my country as well, and defend the anti-corruption framework and a rule of law and state institutions that are supposed to act independently. Therefore, prohibiting amnesties and pardons for this type of corruption crimes is not a political declaration, it is necessary to include it in a European directive. When will it come into force? The position of the Justice Committee of the European Parliament is clear, now we have to initiate a dialogue with other community institutions. I am fully aware that the subsequent negotiations with the European Council [which makes up the governments] will not be easy, but I believe that we have a very solid basis and that it is clear that corruption kills. That is why we need a very strong preventive framework such as this directive. Also a coherent and harmonized framework for criminal offenses and aggravating circumstances and the prohibition of amnesties and pardons. How was the negotiation of this particular amendment? The MEP of her group, Maite Pagaza, assures that it was very hard... It was one of the most delicate issues of all the legislative proposals and especially between different representatives of the Spanish delegation belonging to different political groups. It wasn't easy at all because each game had a red line. What I said was that, regardless of the heated political conversations in Spain or anywhere else, we have to ensure that we have a very solid anti-corruption framework, guaranteed by this directive. The rule of law and the independence of justice in the EU must be protected and that means that pardons or amnesties must be prevented from being granted to achieve investitures or overthrow governments. Support in the vote has been very broad. Is this a clear message against the amnesty that the Spanish Government is promoting? The European Parliament sends a very clear message to any European government that is tempted to use such instruments or to any politician tempted to commit crimes. We have also seen corruption scandals in the European Parliament, so we have to be clear. Why did you reject the socialist proposal to save regional and municipal governments from the ban? In the negotiation there were different proposals from the socialists, but also from the conservatives and of all groups in general. Some wanted to make exclusions from the list of great corruption in which we wanted to prohibit amnesties due to the delicate moment in their country,but that weakened the directive and we were endangering national anti-corruption bodies that had much higher standards. It was a red line for me and also for my political group, because when you give up things to please everyone, you end up having a directive that is not acceptable to citizens or the public interest. They [the socialists] were trying to link the definition of corruption with the question of amnesties and pardons. That was unacceptable and did not serve the purpose of the directive itself, but rather some political interests of the moment, so we decided to return to the initial wording, which was stronger. Did excluding regional leaders from the ban on amnesty seem to you to weaken the directive? Yes, some wanted to limit the ban only to very big fish, but when we are talking about corruption of public officials it cannot be accepted for some and no for others. We must also take into account that in the EU there are all types of states, also decentralized. Why did you also refuse to exclude from the prohibition of amnesty those who embezzle without personal gain? Yes. Some colleagues proposed making that difference, but corruption is no less serious if public money is diverted for a political purpose, even if there is no personal gain. Why do you raise the minimum sentence for embezzlement to six years? With six years we want to be ambitious and guarantee that in all the legal systems of the member states there is a severe punishment. In Spain the Government agreed with Esquerra for a maximum of four years...There cannot be lower standards than those indicated in the directive, so it is something that States have to take into account when establishing their sanctions framework. The framework to which we are taking the directive is ambitious so the different States will have to evaluate their criminal codes and adapt them. In your country, Romania, there was already an amnesty attempt in 2019 that included embezzlement. Was the pressure from the European Commission important for it to end up being aborted? Yes, the European Commission gave support with very strong messages. A blow to the rule of law was taking place in Romania. Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets and protested against it and it is a clear indicator that people do not tolerate it. Therefore, in addition to international support, it is our primary duty to create in each country the antibodies that guarantee the rule of law and a solid anti-corruption framework that ensures that those who govern defend the rule of law and do not harm it. Citizen involvement is important as my country showed.They [the socialists] were trying to link the definition of corruption with the question of amnesties and pardons. That was unacceptable and did not serve the purpose of the directive itself, but rather some political interests of the moment, so we decided to return to the initial wording, which was stronger. Did excluding regional leaders from the ban on amnesty seem to you to weaken the directive? Yes, some wanted to limit the ban only to very big fish, but when we are talking about corruption of public officials it cannot be accepted for some and no for others. We must also take into account that in the EU there are all types of states, also decentralized. Why did you also refuse to exclude from the prohibition of amnesty those who embezzle without personal gain? Yes. Some colleagues proposed making that difference, but corruption is no less serious if public money is diverted for a political purpose, even if there is no personal gain. Why do you raise the minimum sentence for embezzlement to six years? With six years we want to be ambitious and guarantee that in all the legal systems of the member states there is a severe punishment. In Spain the Government agreed with Esquerra for a maximum of four years...There cannot be lower standards than those indicated in the directive, so it is something that States have to take into account when establishing their sanctions framework. The framework to which we are taking the directive is ambitious so the different States will have to evaluate their criminal codes and adapt them. In your country, Romania, there was already an amnesty attempt in 2019 that included embezzlement. Was the pressure from the European Commission important for it to end up being aborted? Yes, the European Commission gave support with very strong messages. A blow to the rule of law was taking place in Romania. Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets and protested against it and it is a clear indicator that people do not tolerate it. Therefore, in addition to international support, it is our primary duty to create in each country the antibodies that guarantee the rule of law and a solid anti-corruption framework that ensures that those who govern defend the rule of law and do not harm it. Citizen involvement is important as my country showed.They [the socialists] were trying to link the definition of corruption with the question of amnesties and pardons. That was unacceptable and did not serve the purpose of the directive itself, but rather some political interests of the moment, so we decided to return to the initial wording, which was stronger. Did excluding regional leaders from the ban on amnesty seem to you to weaken the directive? Yes, some wanted to limit the ban only to very big fish, but when we are talking about corruption of public officials it cannot be accepted for some and no for others. We must also take into account that in the EU there are all types of states, also decentralized. Why did you also refuse to exclude from the prohibition of amnesty those who embezzle without personal gain? Yes. Some colleagues proposed making that difference, but corruption is no less serious if public money is diverted for a political purpose, even if there is no personal gain. Why do you raise the minimum sentence for embezzlement to six years? With six years we want to be ambitious and guarantee that in all the legal systems of the member states there is a severe punishment. In Spain the Government agreed with Esquerra for a maximum of four years...There cannot be lower standards than those indicated in the directive, so it is something that States have to take into account when establishing their sanctions framework. The framework to which we are taking the directive is ambitious so the different States will have to evaluate their criminal codes and adapt them. In your country, Romania, there was already an amnesty attempt in 2019 that included embezzlement. Was the pressure from the European Commission important for it to end up being aborted? Yes, the European Commission gave support with very strong messages. A blow to the rule of law was taking place in Romania. Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets and protested against it and it is a clear indicator that people do not tolerate it. Therefore, in addition to international support, it is our primary duty to create in each country the antibodies that guarantee the rule of law and a solid anti-corruption framework that ensures that those who govern defend the rule of law and do not harm it. Citizen involvement is important as my country showed.But corruption is no less serious if public money is diverted for a political purpose, even if there is no personal gain. Why do you raise the minimum sentence for embezzlement to six years? With six years we want to be ambitious and guarantee that in all cases legal systems of the member states there is a severe punishment. In Spain the Government agreed with Esquerra for a maximum of four years... Standards cannot be lower than those indicated in the directive, so it is something that the States have to have into account when establishing their sanctions framework. The framework to which we are taking the directive is ambitious so the different States will have to evaluate their criminal codes and adapt them. In your country, Romania, there was already an amnesty attempt in 2019 that included embezzlement. Was the pressure from the European Commission important for it to end up being aborted? Yes, the European Commission gave support with very strong messages. A blow to the rule of law was taking place in Romania. Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets and protested against it and it is a clear indicator that people do not tolerate it. Therefore, in addition to international support, it is our primary duty to create in each country the antibodies that guarantee the rule of law and a solid anti-corruption framework that ensures that those who govern defend the rule of law and do not harm it. Citizen involvement is important as my country showed.But corruption is no less serious if public money is diverted for a political purpose, even if there is no personal gain. Why do you raise the minimum sentence for embezzlement to six years? With six years we want to be ambitious and guarantee that in all cases legal systems of the member states there is a severe punishment. In Spain the Government agreed with Esquerra for a maximum of four years... Standards cannot be lower than those indicated in the directive, so it is something that the States have to have into account when establishing their sanctions framework. The framework to which we are taking the directive is ambitious so the different States will have to evaluate their criminal codes and adapt them. In your country, Romania, there was already an amnesty attempt in 2019 that included embezzlement. Was the pressure from the European Commission important for it to end up being aborted? Yes, the European Commission gave support with very strong messages. A blow to the rule of law was taking place in Romania. Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets and protested against it and it is a clear indicator that people do not tolerate it. Therefore, in addition to international support, it is our primary duty to create in each country the antibodies that guarantee the rule of law and a solid anti-corruption framework that ensures that those who govern defend the rule of law and do not harm it. Citizen involvement is important as my country showed.