Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-18-Speech-4-024"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000518.1.4-024"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Ladies and gentlemen, we are not going to repeat the discussions of the Legal Affairs Committee. However, it was totally proper that we should hear the chairperson of the Legal Affairs Committee which has carried out some extremely difficult and meticulous work on a very delicate issue.
I accept full responsibility in this matter. Under the terms of the Treaty I could no doubt have quite simply noted the decree. However, and I take responsibility for this, I preferred to refer to Rule 7(4) and obtain an opinion from the Legal Affairs Committee. This was because I regarded the problem as being legally very delicate. I therefore wanted it to be considered regardless of any political considerations so that the case of the Member in question was dealt with as that of any other Member would be. This is how Parliament must always act, in a very rigorous manner.
(
)
It appears in this case that the person concerned has the option of appealing and that this appeal may be accompanied by a stay of execution. However, from the moment when the European Parliament officially takes note of the decree, the decision will immediately become enforceable. In other words, the option to appeal and the stay of execution will not be possible. This situation cannot be reversed since, if the appeal were successful, we could not tell the new Member to leave in order to allow the former Member to come back. You can imagine the problems this would cause! This is therefore an extremely important responsibility for both your President and this House.
I therefore referred to Rule 7(4), which seemed wholly appropriate to the situation, and asked for the opinion of the Legal Affairs Committee. Once again, I thank the committee for the long hours which its chairperson and members have devoted to this matter.
Now that I have this opinion, I could ignore it. However, although my decision may be disputed, I have decided to abide by the committee’s opinion. This being so, Mr Barón Crespo was right to read carefully the paragraph to which I referred which states that: “He [the President] shall refer the matter to the committee responsible. On a proposal from that committee, Parliament may adopt a position on the matter”. This, effectively, is what our Rules of Procedure say. When we have heard from the Members who wish to speak – and I would ask you not to repeat the discussions on this issue – it would be appropriate to consult the House as to whether it wishes to adopt a position on the committee’s opinion. If so, this vote would be included in voting time at midday.
This is my proposal. There is no perfect solution so we must all try to act with the greatest rigour and fairness.
We are not going to spend the whole morning on this. I would ask you to be brief and we will then take whatever seems to be the best decision. This decision is yours to make as this is a very serious issue. I would remind you that it is in fact Parliament which will officially take note of the decree and not its President."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples