Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-12-13-Speech-2-184"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051213.52.2-184"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Bizarrely, a crucial aspect of the affair of our colleague, Mr Gollnisch, which was nonetheless present in the first three drafts of Mrs Wallis’ report, has disappeared in the final version. This point refers to
. This is the presumption that criminal proceedings are brought about with the intention of prejudicing the Member’s political activity. One of the principles of the European Parliament is that immunity is not withdrawn when there is a suspicion that the motive behind the criminal proceedings is the intention to prejudice the Member’s political activity. Well, evidence of such
nevertheless abounds in this affair. It is not a question here of simple guesswork.
The intrusion of political power in this matter is evident in the intervention of the then Minister for Justice, Mr Perben, who is a direct political opponent of Mr Gollnisch, given that Mr Perben is standing in the municipal elections in Lyon. It is he who personally ordered the start of proceedings, even though the investigation had cleared Mr Gollnisch. The Attorney General of Lyon acknowledged this in a communiqué issued at the time by the entire press corps. It is therefore unclear why the rapporteur ultimately ruled out this
. It emerges, however, from the facts and the circumstances of this affair that the measures taken by the judicial authorities are aimed at hindering the political activity of this Member."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples