Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-03-Speech-3-009"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-10-03"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Announcement by the President2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20011003.1.3-009"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-10-03-Speech-3-0102
lpv:speaker	lp:Gianfranco Dell'alba2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; BUDG (2000-11-16--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine (2000-12-13--2001-11-29)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) (1999-10-05--2002-01-14)3 member; CONT (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Development and Cooperation (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Lista Emma Bonino (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the eighteen MEPs belonging to the Technical Group of Independent Members have taken note of the judgment of the Court of First Instance on 2 October. They point out that this judgment is somehow the inverse image of the order handed down by the President of the same court, who, on 25 November 1999, ruled that Parliament was obliged to recognise the legitimate existence of our group. It stands to reason that we shall be appealing against yesterday’s decision and that, obviously, we ask for an interim order to suspend the effects of the judgment. In this respect, Madam President, in order to avoid any misunderstandings, I ask you, before making further provisions to consult the Legal Services as to the effects of the suspension, which is what we shall ask the Court to do, as is within our rights. Having said that, I would like to draw the attention of my fellow Members to two important aspects of yesterday’s judgment. The first aspect is that our appeal is fully admissible and, therefore, MEPs are fully entitled to question the justice of actions of the European Parliament, such as these. This was not what Parliament wished, as it had requested that the Court declare that this appeal should not be admitted. The second aspect is that, on several occasions, the Court recognises that disparities do exist in the treatment of the Members of the European Parliament. The Court mentions this in Paragraphs 201 and 57 of yesterday’s judgment. I am not going to quote these paragraphs and I will simply say that the Court declared that Parliament must remedy these disparities, as part of its duties to manage internal affairs. Mr Corbett, since your draft report on the reform of Articles 29 and 30, which aims to rectify these disparities has been held in abeyance for a year, we shall continue our fight, we shall be vigilant and we shall do everything within our power to ensure that we continue this fight to eliminate these disparities and that it does not cease as a result of yesterday’s judgment."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph