Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-10-20-Speech-1-100"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2008-10-20"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Applicable law in matrimonial matters – Amendment of regulation as regards jurisdiction and introducing rules concerning applicable law in matrimonial matters (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"it"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20081020.14.1-100"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2008-10-20-Speech-1-1012
lpv:speaker	lp:Carlo Casini2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; DEVE (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 member; JURI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; LIBE (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Unione dei Democratici cristiani e dei Democratici di Centro (2006-05-08--2009-07-13)3 member; EPP-ED (2006-05-08--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2006-06-06--2009-07-13)3 substitute; DROI (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal for a regulation in question was examined in depth by the Committee on Legal Affairs, for which I have the honour of being the draftsman. The suggestions put forward in the opinion approved unanimously by that committee met with only partial approval, however, within the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. Nonetheless, I have to say that together we have tried to rationalise the Council’s initial proposal as far as possible, adding elements of legal certainty. The compromise amendments approved by the two committees with the help of Mrs Gebhardt, whom I would like to thank, have been welcomed and have bolstered the principles we referred to with the aim of getting this regulation off the ground. In this regard, the authorities of a state which makes no provision for divorce and which does not recognise the type of marriage in question will not be obliged to dissolve that marriage. On one point, however, there remains a difference of opinion – that mentioned earlier by Mrs Gebhardt. The basic issue is this: the choice of law is entirely new in the legal world, since it is not normally possible to choose the law, only to choose a judge, making this a completely new concept. Given this choice of law, to which law do we want to refer? To the law of one of the 27 states of the European Union, or to the law of any country in the world? It is true that there is a limit. The limit is that already established by public policy and the non-applicability in a given state of any law providing for a type of marriage not considered to exist in that state. I believe that if we really want legal certainty – my objection is a technical one – if we really want to introduce ‘shopping around’ with regard to the choice of applicable law, if we really want to abide by the weakest code of law – because let us not forget that to choose a law you need consensus and that consensus can also be subject to considerable pressure – if we really want to construct a European legal area then, in my opinion, it is a good thing for all of these amendments that the choice of law be limited to the laws of the 27 states of the European Union. In this sense, though we have tabled several amendments, they are in essence one and the same, and since it is a technical amendment that does not alter our overall opinion of the proposal, we appeal to the common sense of all Members in order that this amendment be approved."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph