Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-24-Speech-2-108"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001024.4.2-108"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
We have voted in favour of Mr MacCormick’s report seeking to uphold Mr Pacheco Pereira’s parliamentary immunity. It is not that we think that the purpose of immunity is to place any Member of this House above the law, but because it is, in certain cases, necessary in order to protect the institution and the independence of its Members in the face of measures of persecution.
Many of us noted the very important development, in section II, paragraph D, on the “Independent nature of European parliamentary immunity compared with national parliamentary immunity.” It is because parliamentary immunity is independent that our institution has the power to review requests for waiver, particularly with regard to ‘fumus persecutionis’ i.e. the presumption that criminal proceedings have been brought with the intention of causing the Member political damage. If we have the power to review requests for waiver, then we have all the more the right to consider breaches of parliamentary immunity, when this is attacked without such a request even being presented!
If European parliamentary immunity is independent, the French authorities ought to have consulted us regarding the waiver of Mr Le Pen’s immunity. We ought to have studied the outrageous reversal of the concept of
which those authorities committed.
Before passing judgement, the French Court of Appeal and the Council of State ought to have notified the Court of Justice in Luxembourg that the question had been referred for a preliminary ruling. In the absence of these crucial formalities, the President of the European Parliament clearly ought not to have allowed a criminal trial instigated in completely invalid conditions to have any effect on Mr Le Pen’s mandate.
This is the legal course that our Parliament should follow in order to be consistent with its principles and its legal code, as well as with the letter and the spirit of the treaties. A great many of us here would like to hear this stated by the Court of Luxembourg, which is the guardian of the law."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"flagrante delicto"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples