Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-10-Speech-1-103"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020610.5.1-103"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the autonomy and independence of the European Parliament to which the Members are called are two of the principles on which the democratic legitimacy of the European Union system is based. They must therefore be preserved – and it is our duty to do this – from the attempts coming from a number of quarters to place conditions upon Parliament’s exercising of its functions. In the institutions of absolute immunity and immunity laid down by the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, the European Parliament has the – albeit limited – tools to defend itself against attacks on its independence or autonomy by other public or private authorities.
This is not so in the case of the Members of the European Parliament elected in Italy. Indeed, very often, the judicial authorities do not take into account the absolute immunity of the Member in question – the European Parliament must understand that – in carrying out the processes laid down in Article 68(2) of the Constitution, particularly where the – albeit indirect – interception of telephone communications is concerned.
There is controversy in Italy at this very time regarding the indirect interception of telephone communications carried out in contempt of the principle of this guarantee. It is apparent that interchanges are taking place which are actually sometimes quite unpleasant between the parliament and certain judges, who are inevitably and, at times, unconsciously, biased. They use the independence and lack of institutional accountability they enjoy as a shield for what are, in fact, political actions. The judges themselves, moreover, are raising this issue
in conventions and seminars and even in official debates.
In the face of this Italian idiosyncrasy, the European Parliament must defend its independence resolutely, particularly when its Members are accused of offences because of opinions they have expressed in the course of their duties. In other words, the European Parliament must be able to intervene to confirm cases of absolute immunity and immunity at the request of the accused Member too, provided, of course, that the requisite conditions and assumptions are fulfilled, as happens in the Italian Parliament.
Mr MacCormick and Mr Duff’s reports lay down procedures for making these guarantees effective.
I will end by thanking both Mr MacCormick and Mr Duff, who, in the report on the adoption of the Members’ Statute, have endorsed our work on it, which I hope will be adopted by the House without delay.
The MacCormick report, as adopted by the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, has already adopted a position on some of the cases mentioned and feels that the cases of the Members or former Members of Parliament, Mr Marras, Mr Speroni and Mr Dell’Utri, are
and in this case, covered by absolute immunity. In any event, the competent judge – the Italian judge, that is – must send Parliament the necessary documentation and establish whether the case in question fulfils the conditions for absolute immunity laid down in Article 9 of the Protocol.
On behalf of the PPE-DE Group, I can only fully support this approach and recommend that Mr MacCormick and Mr Duff’s reports be adopted without any amendment. I would like to thank the rapporteurs for their valuable work."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples