Traduction de «Rapport de vérification sur les fouilles et saisies » (Français → Anglais) :

49. Notes with great concern the Commission’s interim report on the progress made by Bulgaria under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism; is concerned at the continuing parlous state of the Bulgarian legal system; notes that 27 criminal proceedings are under way against 28 judges; asks for clarification regarding a series of cases of alleged fraud in connection with Union funds in Bulgaria, causing a suspension of payments ...[+++] in 2008 in which the public prosecutor’s office suspended the investigations, even though the investigations into similar cases based on the same facts continued in another Member State; is astonished that, in all cases of fraud involving Union funds which were brought before the courts, criminal prosecution was replaced by administrative fines, and that an important case of fraud involving Union funds has been delayed in appeal in court for over 18 months; deplores, furthermore, the disregard of the Commission’s recommendation in not authorising the National Commission for the Identification and Forfeiture of Criminal Assets (CEPACA) to undertake pro-active asset verification of senior officials and politicians; is concerned that the unified, prompt, systematic publication of substantiated judgments is not the norm in Bulgaria; calls on the Commission to put pressure on the judicial authorities to increase their efforts to reform and to implement the Commission’s recommendations as soon as possible; calls on the Commission in this context to disclose how much funding has been allocated to supporting Bulgaria’s efforts to reform and to assess the extent to which the payments have achieved the promised results; expects to see serious improvements over the coming year, with further considerations and a series of measures drawn up by the Commission in cooperation with the Bulgarian government for re-establishing the integrity of Bulgaria’s legal system;

50. Notes with great concern the Commission's interim report on the progress made by Bulgaria under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism; is concerned at the continuing parlous state of the Bulgarian legal system; notes that 27 criminal proceedings are under way against 28 judges; asks for clarification regarding a series of cases of alleged fraud in connection with Union funds in Bulgaria, causing a suspension of payments ...[+++] in 2008 in which the public prosecutor's office suspended the investigations, even though the investigations into similar cases based on the same facts continued in another Member State; is astonished that, in all cases of fraud involving Union funds which were brought before the courts, criminal prosecution was replaced by administrative fines, and that an important case of fraud involving Union funds has been delayed in appeal in court for over 18 months; deplores, furthermore, the disregard of the Commission's recommendation in not authorising the National Commission for the Identification and Forfeiture of Criminal Assets (CEPACA) to undertake pro-active asset verification of senior officials and politicians; is concerned that the unified, prompt, systematic publication of substantiated judgments is not the norm in Bulgaria; calls on the Commission to put pressure on the judicial authorities to increase their efforts to reform and to implement the Commission's recommendations as soon as possible; calls on the Commission in this context to disclose how much funding has been allocated to supporting Bulgaria's efforts to reform and to assess the extent to which the payments have achieved the promised results; expects to see serious improvements over the coming year, with further considerations and a series of measures drawn up by the Commission in cooperation with the Bulgarian government for re-establishing the integrity of Bulgaria's legal system;

Indeed, one of the issues I believe the committee will want to discuss will be the rules necessary to ensure that the Privacy Commissioner, in carrying out his investigative and mediation roles, falls within the guidelines set out in various Supreme Court of Canada decisions, including the decision on the search-and-seizure powers of the old Combines Investigation Act in relation to The Edmonton Journal case.

The role which the UCLAF already plays in practice, involving coordination, information 'clearing', consultancy and the reporting of offences to the national judicial authorities, but on an extremely precarious legal basis (one example is the Regulation on on-the-spot checks, which provides for the seizure of evidence by Union inspectors without stipulating exactly how such evidence is to be forwarded to the relevant judicial autho ...[+++]rity), could thus be strengthened and placed on an institutional footing.

To conclude on the current Restricted Area Pass card, I would note that the Canadian Aviation Security Regulations require Restricted Area Pass holders to do the following: to visibly display their Restricted Area Pass on their outer clothing; to report the loss or theft of their Restricted Area Pass; to return the pass when they are no longer employed at the aerodrome, when their security clearance is no longer valid or when they no longer require access to the restricted area; to surrender their Restricted Area Pass on demand by the minister, the aerodrome operator or the person who issued it; to present their pass, on demand, to a ...[+++] screening officer when the pass holder is undergoing screening; and to surrender their pass to a screening officer on demand when they refuse to undergo screening.

Basically, as Senator Segal pointed out, all of the concerns about privacy and confidentiality potentially invoke the Charter of Rights and Freedoms section 8, the right against unreasonable search and seizure.