Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-07-Speech-2-184"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2010-09-07"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Explanations of vote2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20100907.24.2-184"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2010-09-07-Speech-2-1852
lpv:speaker	lp:Andreas Mölzer2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; AFCO (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3,3 member; NA (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3,3 member; AFET (2009-07-16--2012-01-18)3,3 member; Delegation to the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3,3 unknown; Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3,3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Chile Joint Parliamentary Committee (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3,3
lpv:translated text	"I voted against the waiver of Mr Uspaskich’s immunity because, on closer inspection of the documents, it is clear that action is being taken against Mr Uspaskich with party political motivation. As a member of the Russian minority, he and his party in Lithuania have been subjected to repeated public attacks by the government. He is now accused of having incorrectly calculated the party finances over a period of three years. Interestingly, no case is being brought against the paymaster. In addition, Mr Uspaskich was the coordinator for the party, and therefore also responsible, in the first year only. The incorrect way in which the matter was dealt with in the European Parliament, where Mr Uspaskich was even denied a chance to present his opinion or a statement in the Committee on Legal Affairs, completes the picture. The socialist rapporteur therefore appears to be clearly involved in this political process. This should be rejected, as each case must be dealt with according to the criteria of the rule of law, which, in this matter at least, has not been the case."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph