Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-23-Speech-1-052"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001023.6.1-052"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, this issue arises from a request (announced by yourself to the House on 17 February) by the appropriate Portuguese authorities seeking a waiver of the immunity of Mr Pacheco Pereira in respect of proceedings in Portugal concerning words spoken on a television programme some years ago. The television programme involved a discussion about the respective roles of politicians and journalists. Mr Pacheco Pereira in that debate made remarks about a third party not participating in the debate, to which the third party took exception. Initially, public criminal proceedings were initiated but these were dropped and there is now a private action taking place before the Cascais First Criminal Court. This is therefore a case involving the exercise of freedom of speech in a political matter.
The immunities of Members of the House arise under Article 10 of the Protocol of the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities. The substance of this, for our present purpose, is that Members of this Parliament enjoy in their own Member State the same immunities as would be enjoyed by members of the national parliament of the state in question. The Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, having looked into the matter, is satisfied that, upon an issue of the kind before us, Mr Pacheco Pereira, were he a member of the Portuguese Parliament, would enjoy immunity which could be waived only by the Portuguese Parliament. Therefore, under our rules, he enjoys immunity which can be waived only by decision of this Parliament.
It is important that I should underline the point that immunity is not conceived as an advantage to a particular Member, which she or he may waive or assert as she or he chooses. Rather, it is an immunity asserted by this House as a whole, in the interests of preserving the conditions of effective, democratic politics and argument and of enabling this House, through its Members, to discharge its function properly in an all-Europe democracy. Therefore it is for the House to decide whether the immunity ought to waived or not.
We do not do this arbitrarily. We do it in accordance with precedence and practice established over many years.
The concluding section of my report ought to be read out: “It is indisputable that Dr Pacheco’s comments on a television programme on the press qualify as part of a political debate and therefore Paragraph 1 of Article 157 of the Portuguese constitution would be applicable. Under that provision he would have enjoyed immunity were he a member of the Portuguese Parliament. Accordingly, he does enjoy immunity as a Member of the European Parliament in respect of statements made and opinions expressed in the television programme to which the case relates.” It has been the practice of the House to insist upon upholding immunity in all cases where to deny it would be to inhibit political activity of a legitimate and democratic kind.
On that ground, therefore, the Legal Affairs Committee has unanimously come to the conclusion that, after considering the reasons militating for or against the waiver of immunity, we recommend that the immunity of Mr Pacheco Pereira not be waived by Parliament."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples