Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-09-14-Speech-1-042"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2009-09-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Explanations of vote2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20090914.21.1-042"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2009-09-14-Speech-1-0452
lpv:speaker	lp:Jean-Pierre Audy2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP (2009-07-14--2010-02-09)3 vice-chair; CONT (2009-07-20--2012-01-18)3 unknown; Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; ITRE (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; ECON (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3
lpv:translated text	"I voted in favour of the European Parliament resolution approving the nomination of Mr Karel De Gucht as a member of the European Commission. I question, however, the legal aspects of this decision. Indeed, pursuant to Article 215(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which lays down the rules in the event of a commissioner resigning, it is the Council which, acting by qualified majority, appoints the substitute commissioner. As I see it, the European Parliament does not have any power in this particular case, and its Rules of Procedure, paragraph 2(2) of Annex XVII of which stipulates a vote by secret ballot, are not in line with the Treaty. This stipulation of the Rules of Procedure is certainly imperative for the European Parliament, but not for a properly appointed commissioner. Article 214(2) of the EC Treaty, curiously mentioned as the legal basis of the resolution, concerns not the nomination of a commissioner in the event of a resignation, but the vote to approve the entire Commission as a college. It is also strange to see this resolution adopted on the basis of Rule 106(4) of the Rules of Procedure, which concerns the election of the entire Commission and not the replacement of a commissioner."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph