Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-18-Speech-4-030"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"1999-11-18"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Decision on urgent procedure2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.19991118.2.4-030"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:1999-11-18-Speech-4-0312
lpv:speaker	lp:Nicole Fontaine2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Union pour la démocratie française (1999-07-20--2002-06-16)3 president; Conference of Presidents (1999-07-20--2002-01-14)3 president; Parliament's Bureau (1999-07-20--2002-01-14)3 president; European Parliament (1999-07-20--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (1999-10-12--2002-03-07)3
lpv:translated text	"Ladies and gentlemen, matters seem clear enough, as much as they can be. Rule 112 of our Rules of Procedure refers to Rule 60(1), “A request that a debate on a proposal on which Parliament has been consulted pursuant to Rule 60(1) be treated as urgent…” And Rule 60(1) specifies, “Proposals from the Commission and other documents of a legislative nature”. The problem of interpretation is focused on the nature of Mr Napolitano’s report. As far as I am concerned, I consider – and once again this is what has influenced my thinking, but I shall ask Mr Napolitano if he agrees with me – that the subject of Mr Napolitano’s report is the application of a text of a legislative nature, since it is to do with the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the inquiries carried out by OLAF. Considering that Mr Napolitano’s report concerns a text of a legislative nature, it seems to me that we are in the situation covered by Rule 60(1), as referred to by Rule 112 of the Rules of Procedure. I hope I have made this sufficiently clear. Mr Napolitano, could you tell me if you share my opinion?"@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"President. –"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph