natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On 13 March 2005, the national media reported statements by Alessandra Mussolini concerning an alleged, but unsubstantiated, plot against her: in her views, the then President of the Lazio Region, Mr Francesco Storace, with the help of the then Minister for the Interior, Mr Giuseppe Pisanu, had hatched a political plot to damage the 'Alternativa Sociale' list and favour Mr Storace's coalition, whose election candidates included Dr Angelo Pisanu, the claimant's son.
On 13 March 2005, the national media reported statements by Alessandra Mussolini concerning an alleged, but unsubstantiated, plot against her: in her views, the then President of the Lazio Region, Mr Francesco Storace, with the help of the then Minister for the Interior, Mr Giuseppe Pisanu, had hatched a political plot to damage the 'Alternativa Sociale' list and favour Mr Storace's coalition, whose election candidates included Dr Angelo Pisanu, the claimant's son.
According to the writ of summons issued on behalf of Mr Giuseppe Pisanu by his lawyers, newspapers and press agencies reported, among others, the following statements of Ms Mussolini in connection with those events:
According to the writ of summons issued on behalf of Mr Giuseppe Pisanu by his lawyers, newspapers and press agencies reported, among others, the following statements of Ms Mussolini in connection with those events:
· '(It is) clear that Storace has engaged in IT piracy, with hackers breaking the law.
· '(It is) clear that Storace has engaged in IT piracy, with hackers breaking the law.
And all with the complicity of Minister Pisanu' (ANSA 20.02 h, 16 March 2005);
And all with the complicity of Minister Pisanu' (ANSA 20.02 h, 16 March 2005);
I have to hand the letter which Pisanu wrote to the President of the Rome Appeal Court, who had asked him how he could exclude the Alternativa Sociale list when the signatures had been authenticated by public officials (...) in effect, the minister waived the rules for the judge who had asked him how he could eliminate the Alternativa Sociale list (...) the truth is coming out, Storace hacked into this documentation, which is a criminal offence (...).
I have to hand the letter which Pisanu wrote to the President of the Rome Appeal Court, who had asked him how he could exclude the Alternativa Sociale list when the signatures had been authenticated by public officials (...) in effect, the minister waived the rules for the judge who had asked him how he could eliminate the Alternativa Sociale list (...) the truth is coming out, Storace hacked into this documentation, which is a criminal offence (...).
By means of computer piracy, at the suggestion of Minister Pisanu (...)'
By means of computer piracy, at the suggestion of Minister Pisanu (...)'
(ADNKRONOS 21.21 h, 16 March 2005 );
(ADNKRONOS 21.21 h, 16 March 2005 );
· 'it is perfectly clear (...) the Storace list, in collaboration with Minister Pisanu, used hackers to put together the statement submitted to the public prosecutor to have me excluded from the Lazio elections (...)
· 'it is perfectly clear (...) the Storace list, in collaboration with Minister Pisanu, used hackers to put together the statement submitted to the public prosecutor to have me excluded from the Lazio elections (...)
To avoid losing the elections, Storace organised a statement based on data stolen by hackers from which it appears that some of the signatures collected by us were invalid; to do this he enlisted the help of Pisanu, who sent a circular to the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal took the Ministry for the Interior's advice and excluded us' ( 'La Repubblica' of 17 March 2005);
To avoid losing the elections, Storace organised a statement based on data stolen by hackers from which it appears that some of the signatures collected by us were invalid; to do this he enlisted the help of Pisanu, who sent a circular to the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal took the Ministry for the Interior's advice and excluded us' ( 'La Repubblica' of 17 March 2005);
Italian citizens have been swindled by a Minister who used his powers for unauthorised purposes' (ANSA 12.46 h, 17 March 2005).
Italian citizens have been swindled by a Minister who used his powers for unauthorised purposes' (ANSA 12.46 h, 17 March 2005).
LAW AND GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE IMMUNITY OF
LAW AND GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE IMMUNITY OF
MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
The relevant provisions of the Rules of Procedure are Rules 6 and 7, in particular paragraphs 1 of Rule 6 and paragraph 13 of Rule 7:
The relevant provisions of the Rules of Procedure are Rules 6 and 7, in particular paragraphs 1 of Rule 6 and paragraph 13 of Rule 7:
Rule 6 :Waiver of immunity
Rule 6 :Waiver of immunity
In the exercise of its powers in respect of privileges and immunities, Parliament shall seek primarily to uphold its integrity as a democratic legislative assembly and to secure the independence of its Members in the performance of their duties.
In the exercise of its powers in respect of privileges and immunities, Parliament shall seek primarily to uphold its integrity as a democratic legislative assembly and to secure the independence of its Members in the performance of their duties.
Rule 7 : Procedures on immunity
Rule 7 : Procedures on immunity
Any inquiry as to the scope of Members' privileges or immunities made by a competent authority shall be dealt with according to the above rules.
Any inquiry as to the scope of Members' privileges or immunities made by a competent authority shall be dealt with according to the above rules.
As the President of Parliament considered that the request of the Italian court amounted to an inquiry made by a national authority within the meaning of Rule 7(13), he opened the procedure for consultation on Ms Mussolini's immunity, as laid down in the above-mentioned Rules, and the request was announced in Parliament.
As the President of Parliament considered that the request of the Italian court amounted to an inquiry made by a national authority within the meaning of Rule 7(13), he opened the procedure for consultation on Ms Mussolini's immunity, as laid down in the above-mentioned Rules, and the request was announced in Parliament.
The formal requirements have therefore been met for the matter to be referred to the Committee on Legal Affairs.
The formal requirements have therefore been met for the matter to be referred to the Committee on Legal Affairs.
Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European
Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European
The protocols annexed to the original Treaties form part of primary Community law and have the same legal status as the Treaties themselves.
The protocols annexed to the original Treaties form part of primary Community law and have the same legal status as the Treaties themselves.
The judgment in a case concerning the liability of Community officials for property tax made clear that a breach of the provisions of the PPI represented a breach of the obligations arising out of the Treaties (judgment of 24 February 1988, Commission v Belgium , Case 260/86, ECR.
The judgment in a case concerning the liability of Community officials for property tax made clear that a breach of the provisions of the PPI represented a breach of the obligations arising out of the Treaties (judgment of 24 February 1988, Commission v Belgium , Case 260/86, ECR.
966). read as follows:
966). read as follows:
Article 10
Article 10
a) in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;
a) in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;
b) in the territory of any other Member State , immunity from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings.
b) in the territory of any other Member State , immunity from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings.
Immunity cannot be claimed when a Member is found in the act of committing an offence and shall not prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its Members.
Immunity cannot be claimed when a Member is found in the act of committing an offence and shall not prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its Members.
Of course, these two provisions are mutually exclusive.
Of course, these two provisions are mutually exclusive.
As allegedly defamatory opinions expressed by a Member of the European Parliament are involved, the applicability of Article 9 alone of the Protocol is self-explanatory.
As allegedly defamatory opinions expressed by a Member of the European Parliament are involved, the applicability of Article 9 alone of the Protocol is self-explanatory.
The latter basically provides that where a judge in a civil or criminal court does not decide to accept a plea made by the defence on the grounds of parliamentary immunity, he or she must obtain - or, if it does not already exist, request - the relevant Chamber's decision as to whether the remarks made by the Member, which the plaintiff or the Prosecutors' office alleges were defamatory, are covered by parliamentary immunity.
The latter basically provides that where a judge in a civil or criminal court does not decide to accept a plea made by the defence on the grounds of parliamentary immunity, he or she must obtain - or, if it does not already exist, request - the relevant Chamber's decision as to whether the remarks made by the Member, which the plaintiff or the Prosecutors' office alleges were defamatory, are covered by parliamentary immunity.
That provision literally refers to the parliamentary immunity of Members of the national Parliament within the meaning of Article 68, first subparagraph, of the Italian Constitution, which reads as follows:
That provision literally refers to the parliamentary immunity of Members of the national Parliament within the meaning of Article 68, first subparagraph, of the Italian Constitution, which reads as follows:
Article 68, first subparagraph
Article 68, first subparagraph
Members of Parliament may not be required to give account of any opinions expressed or votes cast in the exercise of their functions.
Members of Parliament may not be required to give account of any opinions expressed or votes cast in the exercise of their functions.
The Italian Court considered Article 68 of the Italian Constitution as well as law 140/2003 because "the rules on the privileges and immunities of the European Community (Article 10 of Protocol 34 annexed to the Treaty of 8 April 1965) give Members of the European Parliament, in respect of facts and proceedings relating to the Members’ home state, the same immunity as that enjoyed by Members of the Parliament of their home country" and "the provisions in question refer back to Article 68 of the Constitution in both substantive and procedural terms" .
The Italian Court considered Article 68 of the Italian Constitution as well as law 140/2003 because "the rules on the privileges and immunities of the European Community (Article 10 of Protocol 34 annexed to the Treaty of 8 April 1965) give Members of the European Parliament, in respect of facts and proceedings relating to the Members’ home state, the same immunity as that enjoyed by Members of the Parliament of their home country" and "the provisions in question refer back to Article 68 of the Constitution in both substantive and procedural terms" .
In this case, as Ms Mussolini is a Member of the European Parliament rather than the national parliament, the court correctly considered that the decision in question falls to the European Parliament.
In this case, as Ms Mussolini is a Member of the European Parliament rather than the national parliament, the court correctly considered that the decision in question falls to the European Parliament.
Article 9 of the Protocol on privileges and immunities provides that Members of the European Parliament have absolute immunity from legal proceedings "in respect of opinions expressed ... in the performance of their duties" .
Article 9 of the Protocol on privileges and immunities provides that Members of the European Parliament have absolute immunity from legal proceedings "in respect of opinions expressed ... in the performance of their duties" .
As a matter of fact, in her statements as reported by the press, Ms Mussolini merely commented on facts in the public domain which had a European political dimension as they were directly linked to the voters' right to a fair electoral competition and their interest in having all candidates duly admitted to it.
As a matter of fact, in her statements as reported by the press, Ms Mussolini merely commented on facts in the public domain which had a European political dimension as they were directly linked to the voters' right to a fair electoral competition and their interest in having all candidates duly admitted to it.
In spite of the merely local scope of the Italian administrative elections, the widest exercise of such a right concerned every European citizen as it was a particular expression of the general and fundamental freedoms as guaranteed by Article 6 of the TEU.
In spite of the merely local scope of the Italian administrative elections, the widest exercise of such a right concerned every European citizen as it was a particular expression of the general and fundamental freedoms as guaranteed by Article 6 of the TEU.
In so doing, she was carrying out her duty as a Member of Parliament in expressing her opinion on a matter of public interest to her constituents.
In so doing, she was carrying out her duty as a Member of Parliament in expressing her opinion on a matter of public interest to her constituents.
Moreover, the fact that the subject of her statements was the behaviour of a politician and the holder of a public office brings them within the realm of legitimate political debate.
Moreover, the fact that the subject of her statements was the behaviour of a politician and the holder of a public office brings them within the realm of legitimate political debate.
On the other hand, to seek to gag Members of Parliament from expressing their opinions on matters of legitimate public interest and concern by bringing legal proceedings is unacceptable in a democratic society and manifestly in breach of Article 9 of the Protocol, which is intended to protect Members' freedom of expression in the performance of their duties in the interests of Parliament as an Institution.
On the other hand, to seek to gag Members of Parliament from expressing their opinions on matters of legitimate public interest and concern by bringing legal proceedings is unacceptable in a democratic society and manifestly in breach of Article 9 of the Protocol, which is intended to protect Members' freedom of expression in the performance of their duties in the interests of Parliament as an Institution.
On the basis of the above considerations, the Committee on Legal Affairs considers that parliamentary immunity within the meaning of Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities and, insofar as it is applicable, of Article 68 of the Italian Constitution fully covers the statements made by Ms Alessandra Mussolini and therefore decides to defend her immunity and privileges in civil proceedings No.
On the basis of the above considerations, the Committee on Legal Affairs considers that parliamentary immunity within the meaning of Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities and, insofar as it is applicable, of Article 68 of the Italian Constitution fully covers the statements made by Ms Alessandra Mussolini and therefore decides to defend her immunity and privileges in civil proceedings No.
Request for consultation on the immunity and privileges of Alessandra Mussolini
Request for consultation on the immunity and privileges of Alessandra Mussolini
District Court of Rome 24.7.2006 16.11.2006
District Court of Rome 24.7.2006 16.11.2006
Klaus-Heiner Lehne 18.12.2006
Klaus-Heiner Lehne 18.12.2006
10 0 0
10 0 0
Carlo Casini, Cristian Dumitrescu, Giuseppe Gargani, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, Othmar Karas, Piia-Noora Kauppi, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Manuel Medina Ortega, Francesco Enrico Speroni
Carlo Casini, Cristian Dumitrescu, Giuseppe Gargani, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, Othmar Karas, Piia-Noora Kauppi, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Manuel Medina Ortega, Francesco Enrico Speroni
PE 388.714v03-00
PE 388.714v03-00
– като взе предвид предложението на Комисията към Европейския парламент и към Съвета ( COM(2007)0091 )
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council ( COM(2007)0091 ),
– като взе предвид член 251, параграф 2 и член 44, параграф 2, буква ж) от Договора за ЕО, съгласно които предложението му е представено от Комисията (С6-0082/2007),
– having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 44(2)(g) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament ( C6‑0082/2007 ),
– като взе предвид доклада на комисията по правни въпроси ( A6‑0252/2007 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0252/2007 ),
Одобрява предложението на Комисията във вида, в който е изменено;
Approves the Commission proposal as amended;
Призовава Комисията да се отнесе до него отново, в случай че възнамерява да внесе съществени изменения в своето предложение или да го замени с друг текст;
Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;
Възлага на своя председател да предаде позицията на Парламента, на Съвета и на Комисията.
Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.
(2) Директива 2005/56/EО на Европейския парламент и на Съвета от 26 октомври 2005 г. относно презграничните сливания на дружества с ограничена отговорност предвижда освобождаване от задължението за проверка на плана за сливане от независим експерт и от изготвяне на доклад от същия експерт, ако всички акционери се договорят, че такъв доклад не е необходим.
(2) Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies provides for an exemption from the obligation to have the draft terms of merger examined by an independent expert and to have a report established by that expert, if all the shareholders agree that such a report is not needed.
(2) Директива 2005/56/EО на Европейския парламент и на Съвета от 26 октомври 2005 г. относно презграничните сливания на дружества с ограничена отговорност предвижда освобождаване от задължението за проверка на плана за сливане от независим експерт и от изготвяне на доклад от същия експерт за акционерите, ако всички акционери се договорят, че такъв доклад не е необходим.
(2) Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies provides for an exemption from the obligation to have the draft terms of merger examined by an independent expert and to have a report established by that expert for the shareholders , if all the shareholders agree that such a report is not needed.
(4) Ако всички акционери са съгласни, че не е наложителна проверка от независим експерт, няма причина тя да бъде изисквана.
(4) There is no reason to require such an examination by an independent expert if all the shareholders agree that it may be dispensed with.
(4) Ако всички акционери са съгласни, че не е наложителна проверка от независим експерт за акционерите , няма причина тя да бъде изисквана.
(4) There is no reason to require such an examination by an independent expert for the shareholders if all the shareholders agree that it may be dispensed with.
ЧЛЕН 3, ПАРАГРАФ 1, АЛИНЕЯ ПЪРВА
ARTICLE 3, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1
The rapporteur supports the Commission in its aim of easing cross-border mergers or divisions.
The rapporteur supports the Commission in its aim of easing domestic mergers or divisions.
The proposal is part of the wide ranging administrative burden reduction exercise contributing to the goals of the Lisbon strategy, in particular the improvement of economic growth and the creation of more and better jobs, by freeing up and redirecting business resources and thus enhancing the competitiveness of the EU's economies.
The proposal is part of the wide ranging administrative burden reduction exercise contributing to the goals of the Lisbon strategy, in particular the improvement of economic growth and the creation of more and better jobs, by freeing up and redirecting business resources and thus enhancing the competitiveness of the EU's economies.
Council Directive 78/855/EEC and Council Directive 82/891/EEC, state that one or more experts, acting independent but on behalf of each of the merging public limited liability companies or the dividing public limited liability company, appointed or approved by a judicial or administrative authority, shall examine the draft terms of merger or division and draw up a written report to the shareholders.
Council Directive 78/855/EEC and Council Directive 82/891/EEC, state that one or more experts, acting independent but on behalf of each of the merging public limited liability companies or the dividing public limited liability company, appointed or approved by a judicial or administrative authority, shall examine the draft terms of merger or division and draw up a written report to the shareholders.
This report must explain the draft terms of merger or division and their legal and economic ground, especially the method(s) used to calculate the share exchange ratio proposed.
This report must explain the draft terms of merger or division and their legal and economic ground, especially the method(s) used to calculate the share exchange ratio proposed.
In case of a merger this report is mandatory according to Directive 78/855/EEC.
In case of a merger this report is mandatory according to Directive 78/855/EEC.
Under Directive 82/891/EEC concerning divisions the report is mandatory if the Member State in question has not used the option to permit non-application of the provision requiring the report if all the shareholders and the holders of other securities giving the right to vote of the companies involved in the division have so agreed.
Under Directive 82/891/EEC concerning divisions the report is mandatory if the Member State in question has not used the option to permit non-application of the provision requiring the report if all the shareholders and the holders of other securities giving the right to vote of the companies involved in the division have so agreed.
The costs of these reports are estimated to approximately EUR 3.500 per merger or division, according to figures from the Danish measurement exercise.
The costs of these reports are estimated to approximately EUR 3.500 per merger or division, according to figures from the Danish measurement exercise.
In particular when SMEs with a limited number of shareholders who are involved in the management are concerned, this report gains no additional information.
In particular when SMEs with a limited number of shareholders who are involved in the management are concerned, this report gains no additional information.
Among the available options of (1) abolition of the requirement unless shareholders ask for it and (2) abolition of the requirement in cases where all the shareholders agree that it is not needed, the second option balances the interests in question at best.
Among the available options of (1) abolition of the requirement unless shareholders ask for it and (2) abolition of the requirement in cases where all the shareholders agree that it is not needed, the second option balances the interests in question at best.
Both options might lead to benefits for companies not in need for these reports by making them voluntarily.
Both options might lead to benefits for companies not in need for these reports by making them voluntarily.