Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-11-30-Speech-3-035-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111130.13.3-035-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I just wanted to clarify that, because some Members asked about it earlier.
With regard to the defence of the parliamentary immunity of Viktor Uspaskich I have to say that this is not in fact what it is about. Mr Uspaskich does not have parliamentary immunity. Parliament waived Mr Uspaskich’s parliamentary immunity on 7 September 2010 – in other words, more than a year ago – and that situation has not changed. On the contrary, Mr Uspaskich has asked for his immunity to be reinstated on the basis of new information that he claims to have.
What is the issue here? Mr Uspaskich is accused by the Lithuanian law enforcement authorities of having contravened party law and tax law in Lithuania during the period from 2004 to 2006 when he was chair of his party. He was not a Member of this House between 2004 and 2006. He was, however, a member of the Seimas (the Lithuanian Parliament). In 2008, the Seimas waived his immunity. He was then elected to the European Parliament in 2009, where he obviously received immunity once again. Then we had to deal with the matter. He was heard in Parliament twice. I want to make this point, because he always claims that he had no opportunity to present his case. He had two hearings in committee.
I do not know whether Mr Uspaskich is guilty or whether he is innocent. He always maintains that he is innocent. I do not know. However, it is not my job, nor is it your job, to decide. It is the job of the judicial authorities in the Member State of Lithuania to decide. We simply have to determine whether two particular aspects to this case are such that his immunity, which he naturally has as a Member of the European Parliament, should be retained and that he should be subject to a different procedure to that of any normal citizen of his country. We have come to the conclusion that this is not the case.
One aspect relates to the question of whether, through such proceedings, he is prevented from expressing his free political opinion as an MEP – but contravention of tax legislation actually has nothing to do with freedom of expression. The second aspect relates to the fact that, as a result of these proceedings, he is persecuted to a certain extent in his political activities. That is something that gives cause for consideration. However, after careful deliberation – following two hearings and after questioning the Lithuanian authorities once again – we reached the conclusion that this was not the case either. Thus, there was nothing else that we could do except waive his immunity.
Mr Uspaskich then went to the Court of Justice of the European Union – as he is entitled to do – to the General Court, and brought an action for the annulment of our decision and for the suspension of the decision until the hearing for the main case. Of course, the Court of Justice of the European Union accepted this, but it rejected the application for a temporary order. Mr Uspaskich then declared that he had new information. Apparently, in WikiLeaks facts were published that confirm his position, and he is therefore asking for the case to be considered once again. He also said that he would withdraw his application to the court. I advised him most strongly against doing that. This is the only route that will enable him to obtain his right in court. I strongly advised him not to do it, but he nevertheless withdrew his appeal to the court.
We then discussed the new facts in another hearing and came to the conclusion that these new facts may perhaps be relevant to the proceedings themselves in Lithuania, but not to the decision concerning the waiving of his immunity. We discussed the matter in detail, debating it for and against in several sittings, and we came to the firm conclusion that there is no other option: as we are not deciding on guilt or innocence here, but only on whether he has privileged access, we have to conclude that neither the first point, regarding ‘the free expression of his political opinion’, nor the second point, namely ‘political persecution’ are relevant here.
There therefore remains nothing else for us to do but to maintain his immunity waiver. We are not making a decision to withdraw his immunity because it has already been withdrawn. Thus, in the report we conclude that his immunity should remain withdrawn."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples