Madam President, firstly I would like to say that, in any event, we are all aware that we are facing a situation in which we have to find our way with few specific points of reference and therefore, we must resort to analogy, precedent, common sense and, in general terms, the general principles of the law. This is because in our statutory law, in our Rules of Procedure, there is no explicit mention of how to proceed in a situation such as this. Secondly, I wish to point out that there is doubtless confusion here. Madam President, you have consulted the Legal Affairs Committee on the basis of a purely formal decision. As on other occasions, such as, for example, when the Legal Affairs Committee examines whether or not to lodge an appeal in the Court of Justice, we are talking about a purely technical assessment by an internal body of Parliament, which makes a recommendation to the President, the external body of Parliament, who is expected to take the decision. I respect what Mr Barón Crespo says. His views were discussed and examined in depth by the Legal Affairs Committee. Allow me to refer to what was said in this committee. Firstly, Mr Barón says that there is no similarity with the Tapie case because the ineligibility in that case stemmed from a bankruptcy and in this case it stems from a criminal conviction. I do not personally share that view, and I believe that, according to the relevant law, there are reasons not to share it, because, in any event, we are talking about two sentences, both from French courts and both leading to ineligibility. It makes no sense now to look into the reason for the sentence. The sentence exists. The fact that it involves ineligibility is what concerns us. Mr Barón’s second argument concerning the difference between the cases related to the fact that Mr Le Pen has not lodged an appeal and that Mr Tapie had. I do not share this view either, and nor did the majority of the Legal Affairs Committee, because Mr Le Pen is still within the time limit for lodging an appeal. We therefore cannot go against something, to which he is entitled under French law: to lodge an appeal within a certain time limit. Please allow me now to refute Mr Medina’s statement on his interpretation of the matter. I would like to do this calmly, although I consider it to be absolutely unjustified and to warrant a more forceful response. However, in my capacity as chairperson, I must point out that the two letters are complementary. In the first letter, Madam President, you were informed that the Legal Affairs Committee had taken a decision not to take note of the judgement for the moment, bearing in mind that it is not final. It is enforceable but not final. In the second paragraph it said: “tomorrow we will continue to discuss this issue”. The second letter refers to what happened at the second meeting and all the members of the Legal Affairs Committee know that that was how I presented it. In no way was there any intention to hold a vote, but simply a discussion. I personally, as rapporteur, was going to propose a basis for discussion. There was therefore no place for a vote on the issue and I had stated that on the previous day. The vote had already taken place in the Legal Affairs Committee. Madam President, I did inform you of what happened in that debate and why it did not continue, and it did not do so basically because there was insistence on the issue of the Tapie case. Clearly, the Legal Affairs Committee can vote on anything, but since it was not laid down and since it was dealing with such an important and serious issue which did not appear in the agenda, it did not seem to me to be reasonable to hold a vote if we were taking a route which all the speakers – and this is recorded in the Minutes – for one reason or another, rejected. Furthermore, the Minutes also show that I said that a committee chairperson rarely obtained such a degree of unanimity with regard to a proposal. I say this in order to refute these statements. I would now like to make a comment in relation to the Rules of Procedure. (Protests) Madam President, Rule 7(4) is being cited. That paragraph – in the event that we had to resort to it, which I do not believe to be the case, and I will explain why – states that Parliament may express its opinion on a proposal. Madam President, there is no proposal to the plenary here. I believe that, in order to vote honestly, on an issue as delicate as this, if Parliament has to vote, a report should be produced in accordance with the rules, so that everybody may vote as they see fit, and not be influenced by allegations from one side or the other, bearing in mind that, in actual fact, the majority of MEPs are not aware of the background to this issue. Therefore, if the President wishes to take this route, a report by the Legal Affairs Committee is absolutely essential and it would be irregular not to proceed in that way,... (Noise) ... for Parliament to express its opinion on an issue for which there is no written document or anything whatsoever, and which requires legal consideration at the highest level. It is absolutely irregular and contrary to the Rule that has been cited... (Applause) ... because, Madam President, a majority in the Legal Affairs Committee considered, on purely legal bases, that we could not take note of this loss of MEP status. (Protests) Madam President, in my opinion, furthermore, this article is not applicable, and I will tell you why: Parliament is asked to take note. It does not have the option of making a political assessment. It is in the nature of all decisions in plenary that they be taken from a political point of view. In this case we are talking about a purely formal legal assessment. Madam President, I believe that it falls to the President to take this decision, and you may consult the Rules of Procedure, which states that you must consult the Legal Affairs Committee. An analysis could be made of the reasons why the Legal Affairs Committee should be consulted, as the internal advisory body in this case. I am prepared to make this analysis, because I have done so before. (Protests) Madam President, you can consult any other internal body and, in particular ... (The President cut the speaker off) ... the Conference of Group Chairmen. However, the House cannot consider this proposal in these circumstances. (Protests and the President cut the speaker off)

Political group: PPE-DE