Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-02-13-Speech-1-173"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-02-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Confiscation of automobiles by the Greek authorities (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"el"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060213.15.1-173"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-02-13-Speech-1-1742
lpv:speaker	lp:Marie Panayotopoulos-cassiotou2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 vice-chair; PETI (2004-07-23--2007-01-14)3 member; EMPL (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; JURI (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with Switzerland, Iceland and Norway and to the European Economic Area (EEA) Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Committee of Inquiry into the crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society (2006-02-01--2007-06-19)3 unknown; Nea Dimokratia (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; FEMM (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, Commissioner, the Cashman report was not drafted in order to defend the . It is based in essence on fewer than a dozen petitions prior to 2004, the authors of which have either reached a compromise with the Greek authorities or are in court and need support. I shall refer to three issues: as far as the relationship of the report to the functioning of the Committee on Petitions is concerned, I wish to comment that it is scandalous that, even though one was requested officially, the written opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament was never given on the extent to which, while proceedings are pending both before the Court of Justice of the European Communities and before the national courts, it is possible for a report to be drafted and to be put to the vote before the European Parliament. Is this not discriminatory treatment of citizens for whose petitions a report was not drafted precisely because proceedings were pending? As to the content, petitions from just one Member State, Greece, were selected, even though there is also confusion about the use of private cars with foreign number plates in the other 24 Member States. That is precisely why the Commission proposed a new proposal for a directive, as you said, and took Greece to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for infringement on the basis of the 1983 directive. As a result, Greek legislation was amended, both by the socialist government of Greece in 2001 and more recently by the New Democracy government in 2005, which is something the report ignores. So why was the report drafted? The few specific petitions which resulted in the drafting of this report are not representative, but their authors give the impression that they have personal relations of goodwill with Parliament. The Committee on Petitions does not have the right to play the role of judge and to construe as true, without proof, information such as the place of normal residence, on which the courts are called to rule. The report started with an assumed number of petitions of 40 and it transpired that there were few petitions, of which some have been closed with a compromise and others are pending before the courts. I call on my honourable friends in all the groups to vote against the report and to give the Committee on Petitions the authority it deserves, with respect for the rule of law and without intervention in the work of justice. I trust, Commissioner, that the proposed new 2005 directive will have a favourable and speedy outcome."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph