Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-14-Speech-3-116"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000614.6.3-116"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
In the vote on the calendar of part-sessions for 2001, most Members of the European Parliament believed that they had the right to remove Fridays from the monthly Strasbourg part-session. This is just another episode in the perpetual secret war waged by the anti-Strasbourg faction against the wording of the Treaties.
As far back as 1997, the anti-Strasbourg faction suffered a major defeat at the Court of Justice, having tried to completely remove one of the twelve ordinary monthly part-sessions. This time, they have tried to achieve their ends in a more subtle way, by cutting the duration of each ordinary part-session, without reducing their number. In fact, in its Judgement of 1 October 1997, the Court of Justice made it quite clear that the Edinburgh Council Decision of 12 December 1992, which was taken to enforce Article 216 of the Treaty, and was furthermore elevated to the rank of protocol by the Treaty of Amsterdam, was as valid as the Treaty and was therefore binding on the European Parliament. In the process, the European Parliament suffered the supreme humiliation of being reminded that it is not a sovereign Parliament, like a national Parliament, but merely an assembly established by treaty and subject to the conditions and limitations set by that treaty.
The Edinburgh decision, reiterated in the Amsterdam Protocol, states that “
In 1997, Mr Lenz, the Advocate-General, stressed the fact that if the text talks about “
” and not, for example, twelve plenary part-sessions are to be held at that location, this implies that the representatives of the Member State governments have submitted to a practice followed by the Parliament where its administration is concerned
This practice, inasmuch as it concerns us today, is that of the ordinary part-sessions in Strasbourg, lasting a full week.
This practice, which serves as a basis for the terms of the Treaty, must be respected. If we allowed ordinary plenary part-sessions to be cut by one day, the rules could be stretched even further, with the result that Strasbourg would gradually no longer be the location for plenary part-session work. The wording of the Treaty would, as a result, be undermined by small, gradual steps.
I should like to take this opportunity to remind you that, as I understand it, setting additional part-sessions in Brussels a year in advance is not a practice that is in accordance with the treaty either. The 1997 judgement states that “additional plenary part-sessions can only be set for another working location if the Parliament holds the twelve ordinary part-sessions in Strasbourg, which is the seat of the institution”. Quite logically, the Court therefore ruled that there can only be an “additional” part-session if the ordinary part-sessions have been held and if they have actually proven to be insufficient for the task of dealing with the cases under consideration. I conclude from this that the European Parliament does not have the right to set additional part-sessions more than a year in advance, as it currently does. Parliament would need to know if the ordinary part-sessions in Strasbourg have been sufficient or insufficient to deal with matters pending. The fact is that it cannot know this so far in advance.
Furthermore, we might think that it is a contradiction to cut the week of the ordinary Strasbourg part-sessions, whilst maintaining the additional part-sessions in Brussels. If Parliament feels that we spend too long in sittings, it is the additional part-sessions in Brussels that should be removed first.
I greatly hope that the French Government will again refer the matter to the Court of Justice, as it did in 1995. I also hope that it will make a genuine effort make the journey to Strasbourg easier for our foreign colleagues. Why should we be surprised if those Members who have a 10 or 12-hour journey because of poor rail or air connections come to be exhausted and to take a dislike to Strasbourg?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"The European Parliament shall have its seat in Strasbourg, where the twelve periods of monthly plenary sessions shall be held…”"1
"where the twelve periods of monthly plenary sessions shall be held"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples