Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-10-19-Speech-1-020"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091019.15.1-020"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, my speech relates, in fact, to Monday’s agenda.
The draft agenda that was issued before we received the document on which we have to vote included, I believe, a debate on three cases of parliamentary immunity. These cases of parliamentary immunity are extremely important because they may have a bearing on the freedom of exercise of a Member who is exposed to the political hostility of the government, or to the political hostility of the courts, or to the political hostility of the courts as exploited by the government, via prosecutors.
I note that these issues have disappeared from the debate and I find that deeply regrettable. There remains only one vote without debate on a report by Mrs Wallis, concerning the immunity of Mr Siwiec. This vote without debate does not permit speeches and thus does not permit the Member concerned to express himself before his peers, before his fellow Members. I find that deeply regrettable.
I will conclude by saying a word about the report by our fellow Member, Mr Speroni, which was adopted by a very large majority – by virtually the whole of this Parliament, I believe – on the attitude of the French authorities, who denied our former fellow Member, Mr Marchiani, the protection of his immunity with regard to phone-tapping, when such immunity is guaranteed to members of national parliaments.
I would like to know what has become of the recommendations from Mr Speroni’s report and, in particular, of the complaint that we had to lodge with the Court of Justice of the European Communities."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples