Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-10-Speech-1-102"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-06-10"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Parliamentary immunity2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020610.5.1-102"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-06-10-Speech-1-1032
lpv:speaker	lp:Georges Berthu2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the European Economic Area Joint Parliamentary Committee (EEA) (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; ECON (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; NA (2001-01-31--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Mouvement pour la France (2000-11-23--2004-07-19)3 member; AFCO (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with Canada (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the Duff report seeks to streamline the procedure for waiving the parliamentary immunity of MEPs and, at the same time, to introduce greater guarantees against its arbitrary nature, which we can only welcome. In our view, however, it provides a poor response to the specific technical question which sparked off deliberation on this issue, namely how to determine which is the competent national body for forwarding to the European Parliament the request for the waiver of immunity of one of its Members. Political common sense tells us that it is up to the Member State in question to appoint this body. Furthermore, the Lamassoure report, which was only adopted at our last sitting, states that when a competence has not been explicitly attributed to the European institutions, it is assumed that the responsibility falls to the Member States. Paragraph 13 of Article 6(a) of the Duff report, however, confuses the problem and manages to complicate further this otherwise simple rule. We are, of course, unable to allow this, Mr President, as I shall state in my explanation of vote."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph