Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-14-Speech-3-271"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010214.8.3-271"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, it is precisely this proposal which means that, when a document is delivered from Sweden to the Commission, it is no longer Sweden that decides that it can be made public but, rather, the new rules that decide that it can be confidential. In this way, it will be prohibited, where such documents are concerned, to exercise the right to freedom of expression and public access to documents under the Swedish constitution. And we shall, of course, be seeing the first real test of that kind of potential conflict on 6 March when Bernard Connelly’s case is heard at the European Court of Justice. The Court will adopt a position on whether what counts is the interpretation of the Council of Europe, Sweden and Denmark and a few other countries of officials’ right to express opinions, or whether it is, instead, the advocate-general’s restrictive interpretation that counts. That conflict will be clearly decided then and there, and that is why I should like to see a commitment from the Swedish Presidency that it will not under any circumstances agree to a situation in which either the regulation concerned or any other authority is able to restrict either officials’ current right to express opinions or the public’s current right of access to information."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples