Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-10-Speech-1-101"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020610.5.1-101"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, there have always been two points underlying the European Parliament’s rules on immunity, even in this situation which is so confusing and difficult to resolve because of the lack of a clear European Parliament Member statute. The first is that immunity exists to protect Parliament, not the Member. The second is that on no account can the European Parliament arrogate to itself the right to pass judgment on the allegations themselves in the manner of a sort of court.
I believe – and, quite frankly, it pains me to say so – that, on both counts, the Duff report’s changes are negative and dangerous, for example where it mentions defending immunities with regard to Rule 6.1(a). In a situation in which we are asking the Europeans to accept measures such as the European arrest warrant, and therefore to agree to the possibility of being arrested on the basis of forms of evidence and procedures customary in a different State from their own, I feel that it is truly absurd to allow Members to effectively block prosecution proceedings.
It is said that a Member’s scope for action should be limited to the cases of absolute immunity laid down in Rule 9 and that the competent Parliamentary committee should then decide whether the Member’s request is acceptable. However, quite frankly, Mr Duff’s text does not make this distinction between Rule 9 and Rule 10, and the fact that the competent committee would, if necessary, be able to make a decision does not convince me. Indeed, I find the vote which took place on the immunity of Mr Dell’Utri, a gentlemen who was not even a Member of Parliament at the time of the alleged offence, wholly unconvincing, for the votes cast in a parliament are always politically motivated.
The procedure proposed is therefore too complex: it leaves the door open to totally unscrupulous behaviour which, although certainly unthinkable in Mr MacCormick and Mr Duff’s country, I regret to say is much more common in other countries. That is why I will vote against the Duff report and I will call upon my group to do the same."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples