Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-02-Speech-3-113"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-02-02"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Court of First Instance2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000202.8.3-113"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-02-02-Speech-3-1142
lpv:speaker	lp:Klaus-Heiner Lehne2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I too would like to thank the rapporteur for this excellent report. I also fully endorse his findings, in which, in particular, he suggests increasing the number of consultants for judges at the Court of First Instance and providing the latter with its own translation service. In point of fact, I consider this to be necessary because we heard, following the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market’s visit to Luxembourg, that it is of course inevitable, a God-given fact as it were, that the Court of Justice should take precedence over the Court of First Instance when it comes to using the joint translation service, and so more often than not, important cases handled by the Court of First Instance cannot be given the attention they deserve. However I also believe that the reforms must go further than those we are to adopt here. For example, I believe it is worth considering making the Court of First Instance that of Last Instance, if applicable, and making this a final competence, in those spheres where benches of the Court, which resemble courts, pass judgement at a preliminary stage – I need only mention the keyword Alicante or whatever the plans are for European civil service law. I am also aware that we are probably also going to have to do something about the European Commission’s inclination to renationalise competition decisions and transfer them back to national level. It seems to me that we need to give this some thought, as these cases will no longer fall to the Court of First Instance of course but to the Court of Justice as draft decisions. We need to consider how we will deal with situations of this kind. Where possible, one should also have the opportunity to present draft decisions in competition cases to the specialist chamber within the Court of First Instance. In addition, we must consider whether it is right and proper – and we have already had cases in which MEPs, not to mention groups, lodged a complaint against the European Parliament – for the Court of First Instance to be responsible for such cases, when in fact matters of a constitutional nature are affected and it makes more sense for such matters to be brought before the Court of Justice than before the Court of First Instance. On a final note, I too believe that OLAF requires monitoring under rule of law. As things stand, OLAF is in a vacuum and can do as it pleases. It is essential for OLAF to be monitored by a court. The only court that could reasonably do so would be the Court of First Instance. That would be another way of spurring the reform process on."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph