Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-15-Speech-3-303"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-11-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Succession and wills (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20061115.22.3-303"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-11-15-Speech-3-3042
lpv:speaker	lp:Maria Berger2
lpv:spokenAs	member; JURI (2004-07-21--2007-01-10)3 member; PES (2004-07-20--2007-01-10)3 substitute; Committee of Inquiry into the crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society (2006-01-19--2007-01-10)3 unknown; Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (2004-07-20--2007-01-10)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Canada (2004-09-15--2007-01-10)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia and the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) (2004-09-15--2007-01-10)3 substitute; AFCO (2004-07-21--2007-01-10)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, the rapporteur – and chairman of our committee – deserves thanks for his report and also for having been willing to take on board a number of my amendments following the debates in committee. I think today is a good day for a subject that is not exactly fun: death and inheritance. Having adopted the services directive at second reading, thank heaven there was no derogation for funeral services, which is what many had wanted. Tonight we are discussing European initiatives in the field of inheritance law. Right at the outset, I would like to clear up a misunderstanding, since it is evident that a technical error has cropped up. I am not seeking to make the certificate of inheritance anything less than binding, but only to delete the words ‘unless and until proven otherwise’; on the contrary, indeed, far from wishing to do away with the certificate of inheritance’s binding effect, I want to reinforce it. Since I shall be clarifying this with the House services, it might perhaps be possible, under these circumstances, for the other groups to vote in favour too. I hope that Amendment 3 is now acceptable. We are proposing as a starting point a residence period of at least two years, for people should not suffer unexpected legal consequences as a result of short-term relocation, while we do not want to make it easy for someone to evade his own country’s inheritance law, to the detriment of his family members, simply by moving elsewhere. I would now like to put the case for my other amendments, which provide for the certification of conformity. Since Recommendation 1 testifies to our desire not to interfere in Member States’ procedural law, I see this examination of conformity as going against the principle of non-interference not only in the Member States' material law, but also in their procedural law. I trust that these explanations will help the other groups to support our amendments after all."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph