Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-23-Speech-1-053"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-10-23"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Request for waiver of Mr Pacheco Pereira’s immunity2
dcterms:Language	"it"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001023.6.1-053"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-10-23-Speech-1-0542
lpv:speaker	lp:Stefano Zappala'2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-10-07--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; Delegations to the parliamentary cooperation committees for relations with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; Temporary committee on the Echelon interception system (2000-07-06--2001-02-11)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-10-07--2002-01-14)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Forza Italia (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, the case of Mr Pacheco Pereira has been carefully examined by the Legal Affairs Committee: the recommendation, which was approved and which is tabled before the House today, is not to reject the request for waiver of Parliamentary immunity. The reasons and justifications for this are given in Mr MacCormick’s excellent report, and the grounds are the following: influences deriving from nationality or affiliation to a particular party cannot, and must not, be permitted; the legal basis must be sound and final; immunity is not a Member’s personal privilege but a guarantee of the independence of Parliament and its Members in relation to other authorities; the date of the alleged deed and the personal desire of the interested party to relinquish their immunity are of no importance. The reference made in the Protocol to national legislation does not mean that the European Parliament is being passed over but is in connection with the procedure, while every Parliament – including, in the case in point, the European Parliament – preserves its authority in its autonomous decisions. When all is said and done, Mr Pacheco Pereira was performing a political activity and cannot therefore be considered responsible for any crime. That is the position of the European People’s Party. We would also like to point out that, if Mr Pacheco Pereira had been Italian, proceedings would have been brought against him without the European Parliament knowing anything about it. The Italian judiciary does not ask for authorisation when the person in question is a Member of the European Parliament and ignores every principle of the respect due to this institution. Some Members of Parliament have already been taken to court during this parliamentary term without a request being put forward for waiver of parliamentary immunity. Personally, I was not able to intervene to condemn these actions in that it concerned members of my own party who have always been political targets, and my involvement would therefore have appeared exploitative. However, the incident has been repeated again, and this time, although the Member concerned is a member of the European People’s Party, he is not from the same political party or persuasion as I am in Italy. Proceedings were brought against Mr Cocilovo without Parliament being informed, indeed in contempt of Parliament. This is an extremely serious matter, Madam President, that you cannot ignore. The autonomy of the European Parliament is at stake!"@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph