Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-11-Speech-2-109"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20020611.7.2-109"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
". Parliamentary immunity appears to be very important to many MEPs, for it is constantly being discussed in this Parliament. MEPs are subject to the national rules of their Member States, and these differ considerably. In one country, this means that during their mandate, MEPs cannot be prosecuted without their own cooperation or without the decision to lift their immunity for punishable offences, and that they are therefore put at an advantage compared to other citizens. This benefits criminals who want to protect themselves. In other countries, like the Netherlands, this merely means that an MEP cannot be prosecuted on the grounds of statements made in the parliamentary debate or in questions as an MEP. For the time being, I am in favour of this restricted definition of immunity, for it ensures that MEPs and their electorate are, and remain, on an equal footing, without the MEPs being hindered in their work. I can understand that there is more need for immunity in states where attempts have often been made to seriously hamper MEPs, who are considered political enemies, in their work by constantly instituting legal proceedings against them. But let us keep this to a minimum and not extend it to separate European law."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph