Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-30-Speech-1-048"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030630.8.1-048"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, this case gave rise to very long debates and a certain number of changes of heart within the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, before a unanimous position could be reached. These changes of heart are linked to the singular character of this case. As in the previous case, we are faced with a situation in which freedom of expression is at stake.
An action has been brought against Mr Musotto in connection with certain remarks he made to Italian television just after his election by universal suffrage, but before the beginning of the Parliamentary session. The problem is, therefore, that, according to the letter of the treaties, he was not a ‘proper’ Member of Parliament at the moment he made his feelings known.
This strict interpretation – restrictive, even – would lead us to waive the immunity of an individual who was not a Member of this House at the moment in question. This solution may be pure in legal terms. It is morally and legally profoundly shocking, however, for in legal matters one must consider not only the letter of the law, but the spirit as well. With this in mind, there can be no doubt that, when he was interviewed by the press, Mr Musotto was already considered to be a Member of Parliament, since, when the journalist spoke to him, he prefaced his question with Mr Musotto’s Parliamentary title. It is thus indisputable that Mr Musotto was interviewed in his capacity as a Member of Parliament. He also gave his answers in that capacity, and it seems to me that any result which threatened to waive his immunity, or which threatened not to uphold his immunity, would go against the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. That is the unanimous opinion reached by the Committee on Legal Affairs in the course of lengthy debates.
As the rapporteur has already stated in a previous case, interpretations of national law must be set to one side where the freedoms of thought and expression are involved. Whatever Mr Musotto may have said, we should uphold his Parliamentary immunity at all costs: the independence of our institution is at stake. I agree that it is harmful to be overly reliant on national laws. In the case in point, it would seem that Italian law grants immunity to anyone who has just been elected by universal suffrage. By interpreting the treaties generously, the Committee on Legal Affairs has acted with great wisdom, courage and consistency, since its stance is directly in line with previous decisions taken in analogous situations.
We have nevertheless incorporated into the conclusions to our report a suggestion that the Convention and the next Intergovernmental Conference correct this textual anomaly by amending Article 3 of the Act of 1976. Such a revision would allow optimal protection of Members, guaranteeing them real freedom of expression and filling the existing legal vacuum. Finally, it would make the beginning of the mandate and the proclamation of the results of elections to the European Parliament coincide in time. The letter and spirit of the treaties would thus be reconciled.
That, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, is why I recommend that Mr Musotto’s immunity should be upheld."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples