I must start my speech by referring to certain allusions that have been made. Whilst I have the utmost respect for Mr Barón Crespo, he said something that, as with so many things that are being said in this House today, he left unclear. We are compatriots, yes, we are all aware of that, and it is a great honour, may I add. I am surprised at the tone of this debate. I am surprised because you pointed out that we are discussing an issue that is essentially legal in nature, and we need to keep it within the boundaries that you, Madam President – and I would like to highlight this – have kept it within, come hell or high water, thus demonstrating conviction and legal certainty. Mrs Frassoni started by making an accusation that I think discredits itself. That is not all, however, as Mr Corbett, Mrs Hautala and Mr Barón Crespo also seem to be telling us that the important thing for an institution is who gets there first, and to be saying that we need to move faster, that we are going very slowly. That is not the point of the issue, as you so rightly pointed out. Here there are major doubts, doubts that are justified, as to whether the procedure was formally correct, and therefore time does not matter. We have to wait until the necessary legal steps have been taken in order to dispel that doubt. It is unfortunate that we were not able to obtain an answer before, but what is most unfortunate is that it was not sent through the usual channels according to the Rules of Procedure. I would also like to make a couple of points to Mrs Hautala, with all the admiration that she knows that I have for her. Mrs Hautala, in the case that you mentioned and which you have consulted, there is a fact, aside from the two that the President gave to you. In the Official Journal it shows that the request came from the Minister of Justice, as it also shows in the report, but there is a letter from President Kleps, by which the President of Parliament notified the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, in which the Ministry is also mentioned. Are we perhaps to think that in this Parliament, which drew up that letter, the official who drew it up is not able to tell whether something comes from the Ministry of Justice or not? Therefore, an assumption has been made, despite the fact that there is no documentary evidence, but assumptions have been made, and very strong ones, that in one way or another the letter was sent through the Ministry of Justice, because I cannot believe that the person responsible for drawing up that letter for the President at the time was not able to tell and would say explicitly in the letter that it came from the Ministry of Justice if that was not the case. Madam President I think that, as the Conference of Presidents very wisely decided, we should wait for Mrs Garaud to deal with this matter and to take the steps that she deems appropriate as the person mandated by the Conference of Presidents. We need to give it that time. With regard to the delay, I would like to say that this case is taking a long time, but that people should take a look in the files of the Committee on Legal Affairs. At the moment, for example, we have a request for the German Government that has not been answered for nine months. That is how it is, and it is there for all of you to look at. Finally, Madam President what is the problem that we are faced with? It is a problem, if you will allow me, associated with the happy event of the growth of Europe in the context of a Europe of justice, the area of justice, because here the Supreme Court is arguing that appeals can be made to the European Parliament just as they can to national parliaments. In my opinion, with the law as it stands, this is still not possible. Let us hope that it will be in the future. Personally I hope so, but for the moment let us be content with respecting the law that is in force. We do not want voluntarism, which, as you so rightly said, Madam President, would only lead us to the Court of Justice. (Applause from the right)

Political group: PPE-DE