Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-05-Speech-3-393"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-09-05"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Implementation of competition rules2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010905.12.3-393"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-09-05-Speech-3-3942
lpv:speaker	lp:Rainer Wieland2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (1999-09-14--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-09-01--2002-01-14)3 member; PETI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Latvia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-11-11--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am in a similar position to Mr von Boetticher in the previous debate. I do not want to go into details on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. We think that Mr Evans has produced a good, well-rounded report, and congratulate him on doing so. The amendments proposed by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and adopted by the committee responsible are intended to enhance the rapporteur’s report. Let me give you an example. The Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market has called for the new text to state that decisions be made public, not ‘may be published’, as the old text might imply, although confidential information is obviously excluded. However, I would like to draw attention to one point which the rapporteur has also just mentioned, and highlight it to the Commissioner and the qualified minority of expert colleagues who are still assembled here. I am referring to Amendment No 10 proposed by the committee responsible. Many Member States provide for confidentiality, i.e. legal privilege, between client and counsel. This is part of established legal reality in the majority of Member States. Whenever an individual wants to bare his soul completely, he needs a confidant; this may be a doctor, a solicitor or, in a religious situation, a priest. Amendment No 10 safeguards this traditional relationship between legal counsel and client and extends it to in-house lawyers as well. The Commissioner may assure us that disclosures from the documents held by such legal counsel will not result in stiffer sentences. However, it is not very helpful, in my view, to set an upper limit on sentencing and say: Even your legal counsel told you not to do this. Since you chose to do it anyway, your sentence will be increased. This is sensible, but I would point out that such a declaration would not be sufficient, for the disclosures to legal counsel would, of course, almost certainly constitute significant evidence of guilt. This violates professional independence and the principle of confidentiality between client and counsel. In my view, we have to decide one way or the other. “A bit pregnant” cannot exist here."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph