Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-11-30-Speech-3-036-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2011-11-30"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Request for defence of the parliamentary immunity of Mr Viktor Uspaskich (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"pl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20111130.13.3-036-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2011-11-30-Speech-3-037-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Tadeusz Zwiefka2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; AFCO (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 unknown; Platforma Obywatelska (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP (2009-07-24--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Moldova Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; JURI (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Armenia, EU-Azerbaijan and EU-Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committees (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I have had the pleasure of being a member of the European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs for over seven years. In that time we have examined dozens of cases relating to the possible waiver or defence of a fellow Member’s parliamentary immunity, and I would like to say very clearly to all fellow Members once again – because Mr Rapkay has spoken about this, and I want to clarify this further – the European Parliament is conspicuous among the parliaments of Europe in that it has extremely precisely defined procedures for dealing with the question of parliamentary immunity. It is stated clearly that parliamentary immunity can be defended only when the offence for which the person is to appear before a judicial authority in his country is related to the exercise of the mandate of a Member of the European Parliament. While I still have complete sympathy for Mr Uspaskich and for his work, and also for what he has done in the European Parliament, I want to say clearly that after the long debate which we have had in the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) we have come to the conviction that our sympathies are one thing and the letter of the law are another. We must therefore continue to maintain the position which we have held unchanged for many years, which is that if the offence is not in the least degree related to exercising the mandate of a Member of the European Parliament there is not the slightest possibility for the European Parliament to defend a Member’s immunity. Mr Rapkay has outlined the whole story which has grown up around this matter, and I just want to remind everyone once again that the European Parliament waived Mr Uspaskich’s immunity over a year ago. All we can do today is say whether that decision was justified or not. The PPE Group thinks that this decision of Parliament should not be changed."@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