Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-04-Speech-1-013"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"1999-10-04"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Adoption of the Minutes of the previous sitting2
dcterms:Language	"it"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.19991004.3.1-013"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:1999-10-04-Speech-1-0142
lpv:speaker	lp:Francesco Enrico Speroni2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Lega Nord per l'indipendenza della Padania (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 co-chair; TGI (1999-07-22--2001-10-02)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, I submitted a question for Question Time in accordance with Rule 43 of the Rules of Procedure and I adhered to the time frame contained in Annex II A(13) which stipulates, “Questions shall be tabled to the President at least one week before Question Time begins. Questions not tabled within this time limit may be taken during Question Time with the consent of the institution concerned.” However, the question was rejected by the competent service because a term appears on the back of the form that is different to the term used in the Rules of Procedure. Firstly, I wonder whether it is correct that a form can amend a ruling. Secondly, in any case, the Rules of Procedure stipulates that, even if a question is tabled after the deadline, the question is admissible if the institution concerned agrees. Instead, a completely different procedure has been followed. Given that the Rules of Procedure were approved by Parliament, whereas the form was produced by internal bureaucracy, I am wondering whether bureaucracy should prevail, or whether what the citizens’ representatives voted for should prevail instead."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph