Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-04-19-Speech-4-455-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2012-04-19"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20120419.18.4-455-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2012-04-19-Speech-4-457-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Franz Obermayr2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries (2012-02-13--2014-06-30)3 substitute; EMPL (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 member; IMCO (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Union for the Mediterranean (2012-03-29--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; NA (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3
lpv:translated text	". The accession of the EU to the Convention on Human Rights is to be rejected for several reasons. Firstly, there is absolutely no need for it, as we already have the fundamental rights judicature of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Individuals can submit an action for annulment in order to get legal acts reviewed. In addition, since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, we have had our own Charter of Fundamental Rights. Secondly – and I find this highly problematic – the EU will be subjecting itself to external scrutiny by the European Court of Human Rights. Quite apart from conflicts of competence with the Court of Justice of the European Union, how can we have a situation where our legal acts are reviewed by judges from Azerbaijan, Ukraine or Turkey? These countries are not in the EU, nor do they have much time for human rights. Lastly, with regard to content, do we really need a court that wants to nullify the Dublin II Agreement? Do we need a court that we have to fight right to the highest level in order to obtain permission to hang up crucifixes, a court that wanted to prohibit Italy from refusing to accept the influx of migrants into Lampedusa, or one that wanted to prohibit England from refusing to accept marriages of convenience? This far left judicature of the European Court of Human Rights is something we do not need."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph