Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-11-Speech-2-336"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020611.7.2-336"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
".
The purpose of this report is to revise Article 6 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure concerning: (a) the concept of the 'appropriate authority' of a Member State to request that immunity be waived; (b) the appropriate procedure for verifying the competence of the authority submitting the application for the lifting of immunity of a Member facing prosecution; (c) the procedure Parliament should follow when examining a request for the waiver of a Member’s immunity; and (d) the procedure to be adopted when Parliament needs to assert the parliamentary immunity of a Member. I fully supported the initiative, especially the part – which I consider to be most relevant – which closed an obvious gap in the Rules of Procedure, which has been clearly illustrated in the cases underlying the MacCormick report, which was debated and voted on at the same time. These were cases in which it was not the Member State authorities requesting the waiver of immunity but instead a Member requesting that his status be guaranteed in the event of prosecution in any given Member State. As in the specific case of the Italian system, the onus is on the Member himself or herself and not the authorities to submit the request for immunity."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples