Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-17-Speech-4-269"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-05-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:VOTE2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010517.15.4-269"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-05-17-Speech-4-2642
lpv:speaker	lp:Erik Meijer2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Socialistische Partij (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member_of_the_bureau; EUL/NGL (1999-10-13--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Slovak Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine (2000-12-13--2001-11-29)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Czech Republic Joint Parliamentary Committee (2000-11-09--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	". Matters such as conscription, the use of soft drugs, the obligation to carry an identity card, abortion, euthanasia and the recognition of same-sex marriages are regulated very differently in the different Member States of the European Union. Something which may be against the law in one Member State, is not in another. This proposal does not alter that, with good reason ; even within the federation of the United States, the penalty for offences and crimes is very different because these matters are decided upon at a lower level. That does complicate things if judgments from one Member State are to be carried out in another Member States. Should people be locked up for an action which is not punishable in the relevant country, and should the indignation which inevitably ensues be broken up with police violence? The proposal creates no problems if the action for which a ruling has taken place is punishable in both Member States and if the same penalty applies. I regret that precisely this principle of ‘dual criminality’ has been rejected in the report, even if I can appreciate that this gives major criminals less opportunity, by means of expensive lawyers, to sabotage and delay the course of justice. Only because recital EE provides for possibilities for exclusion due to differences in national legislation, am I prepared to give this proposal the benefit of the doubt."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph