Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-09-23-Speech-2-437"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2008-09-23"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Proceedings before the Court of Justice (Amendment of Rule 121) (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"el"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20080923.41.2-437"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2008-09-23-Speech-2-4382
lpv:speaker	lp:Costas Botopoulos2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation for relations with the Maghreb countries and the Arab Maghreb Union (including Libya) (2007-10-25--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (2007-10-25--2009-07-13)3 substitute; JURI (2007-10-10--2009-07-13)3 member; PES (2007-10-01--2009-07-13)3 member; BUDG (2007-10-10--2009-07-13)3 substitute; AFCO (2007-10-10--2009-07-13)3 member; CONT (2007-10-10--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Panellinio Socialistiko Kinima (2007-10-01--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"− Mr President, the draft report we are discussing today concerns the amendment to Rule 121 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament regarding proceedings before the European Court of Justice. As the Rule stands, it regulates such proceedings only in cases where the European Parliament brings an action before the Court. However, the text does not tell us what happens when Parliament decides to state its views through its representative, the President, by submitting observations or intervening in prejudicial proceedings. These proceedings serve to contest the validity of a legislative act that the European Parliament itself has approved within the framework of the co-decision procedure. A question has therefore been put by the Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs, Mr Gargani, whom I would like to take this opportunity to thank for his help in preparing this report. He asks whether this procedure of intervention and submission of comments is covered by Rule 121, and if not, what we should do. The first answer I give in my report is that one procedure cannot be considered to be included in the other; that the word ‘action’, used in Rule 121, cannot be considered to include the qualitatively different case of submission of comments or intervention in Court. On this basis, the first answer is that we cannot proceed merely on the basis of interpretation. Can we stick to the Parliamentary practice whereby the decision in such cases lies with the President of Parliament, as our head and representative in court cases? Once again, I think the answer is no. A more reliable course of action is to work out a new procedure in detail. Why, though, is this really so? Because there have in practice been occasions when the President of Parliament has decided not to follow the recommendation of the Committee on Legal Affairs. This is when it is a matter of defending the validity of a prior decision of Parliament before the Court. This has happened twice in Parliament’s recent history. We have grounds for saying that we should work out the procedure from scratch. What solution is proposed? Following a recommendation by the Committee on Legal Affairs, the President, if he agrees, submits his comments. If he does not agree, he settles the matter after discussion in the Conference of Presidents. Why the Conference of Presidents? Because it is a collective body that can reach decisions with due regard to the pros and cons in each case. Only in cases where the Conference of Presidents decides that, for exceptional reasons (revision of the Treaties, for example), Parliament should not protect its previous position, only in such cases is the matter referred to Plenary, because Plenary alone is in a position to amend a previous decision it has reached."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph