Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-02-Speech-3-067"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-05-02"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Request for the waiver of Peter Sichrovsky's immunity2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010502.4.3-067"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-05-02-Speech-3-0682
lpv:speaker	lp:Maria Berger2
lpv:spokenAs	member_of_the_bureau; PES (2000-03-08--2002-01-16)3 member; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; Temporary committee on the Echelon interception system (2000-07-06--2001-09-05)3 substitute; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, like the previous speakers, I believe that we should use the Sichrovsky case, which we are discussing today, as an opportunity to go beyond matters of pure routine and to reflect on the logic or otherwise of parliamentary immunity. The historical roots of this concept, that is to say the protection of the free mandate of Members against interference from what originally were often still very much monarchy-led authorities, now only serve as a partial justification for the institution of immunity. There must be no doubt that when it comes to statements made as a direct consequence of exercising our mandate or in connection with votes in this House, immunity, sometimes referred to as indemnity, needs to be fully guaranteed in practice. However, in cases involving actions and statements with very tenuous political connections, and in particular where protection against prosecution by the state is not involved, but rather the rights of fellow citizens in relation to Members, then we are pushing at the limits of the legitimacy of blanket immunity. In such cases, there is a risk that immunity becomes a privilege. If we in the European Parliament – in contrast to many national parliaments – still grant such wide-ranging protection, then every single Member should behave in such a way that we are justified in maintaining this practice. The generosity of this Parliament, which is rooted in fundamental considerations in this case too, which is as it should be, therefore also benefits those Members who belong to parties which do not take the protection of freedom of expression and freedom of information very seriously at home."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph