Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-02-Speech-3-080"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-05-02"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Request for the waiver of Elisabeth Jeggle's immunity2
dcterms:Language	"it"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010502.6.3-080"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-05-02-Speech-3-0812
lpv:speaker	lp:Stefano Zappala'2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-10-07--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; Delegations to the parliamentary cooperation committees for relations with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (1999-10-07--2002-01-14)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Forza Italia (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, of course we too endorse the opinion expressed in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market on this request for waiver of immunity; that is, we support the rapporteur's proposal. However, I would like to take this opportunity to remind the previous speaker – not the rapporteur, the Member who spoke before him – that the immunity is Parliamentary immunity, not immunity of the individual Members, that the European Parliament expresses its self-protection through its Members and that the will of the Members who find that they are the subject of a request for waiver of immunity has no bearing on the situation, because each one of us represents the entire Parliament, not himself or herself. A Member's wish to relinquish immunity therefore has no effect: this is the custom and this is the written rule, and political expressions or, in any case, political activity – I repeat it is the custom – cannot be subjected to any type of judgment. Therefore, the Committee on Legal Affairs has expressed a clear opinion in these three cases: it has already expressed this opinion in the past and I am sure that it will do so again in the future, simply because it is now consolidated practice. Outside this Chamber, certainly no one could think or maintain that Parliament could be condemned for performing activities which are clearly and explicitly political. The refusal to uphold immunity in this case, and therefore the committee's proposal to waive immunity for something which has nothing to do with politics, is proof of consistency."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph