Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-12-15-Speech-2-362"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091215.21.2-362"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, as a lawyer and a Member of the European Parliament, I am sure that there are many citizens following our debate who share my feeling that it lacks focus. We are therefore going to try to clarify a few things.
I even think that a rule of European law could be invoked that allows a vote to be postponed if there are doubts as to the relevance of a vote that has nothing to do with affairs that concern the European Parliament, which, in my view, is the case here.
I therefore think that although this debate is legitimate, it is definitely lacking in focus and does not require an urgent pronouncement, and even less a protest or a revocation of a judgment that was passed down by a court of justice that is not a European Union institution.
Firstly, we are talking about a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, which is not a European Union institution but rather a court – one that is part of a concentric circle of the European Union, but is separate – which is committed to the Rule of Law, representative democracy and human rights.
Secondly, we are talking about a judicial resolution, and no resolution by Parliament can revoke or amend any resolution passed down by a court of justice.
Thirdly, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights is highly respectful of religious freedom and its corollary, which is religious pluralism. Religious freedom is part of our common constitutional traditions and of the constitutional law of the Member States, and it is also a fundamental right protected by the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
The judgment therefore gives reasons, with a solid legal basis, for the protection of religious freedom. It does not deny it at all. What is more, it is done unanimously by a prestigious court that has influenced the formation of the culture of human rights for almost sixty years.
Ultimately, however, and this is important, we need to remember that no judgment of the European Court of Human Rights means that the legislation of any Member State that has signed up to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights has to be amended, because the judgment recognises a right in response to an infringement in a specific case.
It is only on that basis that it is up to the Member States to make the appropriate decisions about amendments to legislation or policies that might be inspired by the doctrine of the European Court of Human Rights, but under no circumstances are they obliged or compelled to do so by any judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.
There is therefore no reason for any Member State to be concerned. None of them are obliged to amend their legislation or its public policies as a result of a specific judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. Therefore, neither Italy nor any other country has any reason to adopt any general rules as a result of this judgment.
Lastly, however, subsidiarity has been invoked. We have to say that subsidiarity is a rule of European law that has no application in this case, because its concept and applications have nothing to do with this case."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples