Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-06-07-Speech-2-145-500"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110607.19.2-145-500"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mrs Wallis claims that the same principles are always applied by the European Parliament with regard to the waiver of the immunity of its Members. That is a cynical lie. In a case concerning me personally, the Court of Justice ruled in 2010 that Parliament had violated my rights as an MEP – and it violated them again last month, on exactly the same grounds!
For her to say that an MEP’s immunity should be waived because the comments for which he or she is being criticised did not come within the scope of his or her parliamentary activities is absolute nonsense from a legal point of view. If that had been the case, legal action would not have been possible! This is the basis of the current Article 8. By definition, Article 9 applies to activities beyond the scope of this Parliament! Parliament now preserves or waives immunity according to how it feels: it waives it for political opinions in one case, but preserves it for suspected tax evasion in another, considering it an example of
. As I am more strongly attached to freedom of expression than the pseudo democrats in this House, I shall systematically refuse to waive the immunity of one of my fellow Members, from whichever political group, for the expression of his or her opinions, no matter how much they differ from my own."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples