natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to Mr Pęczak's letter, the Polish Public Prosecutor's office violated the law by sending the first request to waive his immunity in June 2004 only to the Polish Parliament Marshal, and not to the European Parliament as well.
According to Mr Pęczak's letter, the Polish Public Prosecutor's office violated the law by sending the first request to waive his immunity in June 2004 only to the Polish Parliament Marshal, and not to the European Parliament as well.
That request had no further effect.
That request had no further effect.
Moreover, Mr Pęczak considers, that "the Public Prosecutor did not have the right to apply for [his] provisional arrest to be approved, as, under Polish law, such a measure can be decided exclusively by the competent court".
Moreover, Mr Pęczak considers, that "the Public Prosecutor did not have the right to apply for [his] provisional arrest to be approved, as, under Polish law, such a measure can be decided exclusively by the competent court".
With regard to the District Court's decisions on his detention and arrest as well as the subsequent extensions of his provisional arrest, he complains about the politically motivated influence of the Prosecutor's office over the Court, resulting in the breach of the presumption of innocence.
With regard to the District Court's decisions on his detention and arrest as well as the subsequent extensions of his provisional arrest, he complains about the politically motivated influence of the Prosecutor's office over the Court, resulting in the breach of the presumption of innocence.
Mr Pęczak also claims that the conditions of his detention and arrest intentionally limit his ability to defend himself, and that the example of his case (including a two-month period waiting for a blood test to be made on medical grounds) puts into question the fundamental rights of an ordinary Polish citizen.
Mr Pęczak also claims that the conditions of his detention and arrest intentionally limit his ability to defend himself, and that the example of his case (including a two-month period waiting for a blood test to be made on medical grounds) puts into question the fundamental rights of an ordinary Polish citizen.
Finally, he maintains that he is unaware of the reasons for the extension of his arrest, as the Public Prosecutor's office applied for its extension on the grounds of a "strong intention to present new charges".
Finally, he maintains that he is unaware of the reasons for the extension of his arrest, as the Public Prosecutor's office applied for its extension on the grounds of a "strong intention to present new charges".
Mr Pęczak has not informed the European Parliament of the charges brought against him, referring only in general terms to the pre-election
Mr Pęczak has not informed the European Parliament of the charges brought against him, referring only in general terms to the pre-election
The parliamentary elections in Poland took place on 25 September 2005 and the Presidential elections on 9 and 23 October 2005. "ostentatious show of principle in the fight against corruption".
The parliamentary elections in Poland took place on 25 September 2005 and the Presidential elections on 9 and 23 October 2005. "ostentatious show of principle in the fight against corruption".
Mr Pęczak claims that the simplified procedure by which the Sejm waived his immunity was "legally invalid".
Mr Pęczak claims that the simplified procedure by which the Sejm waived his immunity was "legally invalid".
Moreover, he considers that its decision was influenced by the 'public verdict' based on mass media publishing certain "unsubstantiated evidence" from the inquiry.
Moreover, he considers that its decision was influenced by the 'public verdict' based on mass media publishing certain "unsubstantiated evidence" from the inquiry.
Mr Pęczak insists that because the Sejm's decision was not included in the Prosecutor's application file sent to the District Court, the latter's approval of detention and arrest were illegal.
Mr Pęczak insists that because the Sejm's decision was not included in the Prosecutor's application file sent to the District Court, the latter's approval of detention and arrest were illegal.
He complains also about the Regional Court's decision to uphold the ruling, regardless of the fact that it discovered that the Prosecutor's office had supplied the relevant documents only 33 days after the detention.
He complains also about the Regional Court's decision to uphold the ruling, regardless of the fact that it discovered that the Prosecutor's office had supplied the relevant documents only 33 days after the detention.
Finally, he states that neither the guarantees offered by public figures ( no names mentioned in his letter ), nor the letters sent to the Marshal of the Sejm and the Ombudsman, have had any effect for his case.
Finally, he states that neither the guarantees offered by public figures ( no names mentioned in his letter ), nor the letters sent to the Marshal of the Sejm and the Ombudsman, have had any effect for his case.
In conclusion , Mr Pęczak asks for the defence of his parliamentary immunity in order that he may not be prosecuted .
In conclusion, Mr Pęczak asks for the defence of his parliamentary immunity in order that he may not be prosecuted.
Otherwise he claims not to be able to "exercise [his] right to be presumed innocent" and defend himself in the criminal proceedings.
Otherwise he claims not to be able to "exercise [his] right to be presumed innocent" and defend himself in the criminal proceedings.
As the President of Parliament considered that Andrzej Pęczak had opened the procedure for defending his immunity, as laid down in the above-mentioned Rules, the request was announced in Parliament.
As the President of Parliament considered that Andrzej Pęczak had opened the procedure for defending his immunity, as laid down in the above-mentioned Rules, the request was announced in Parliament.
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.
In order to assess the possible infringement of the PPI, it is useful to call to mind two pertinent facts :
In order to assess the possible infringement of the PPI, it is useful to call to mind two pertinent facts :
a) It is not possible to say that the charges brought against Mr Pęczak, which are at the origin of his detention and provisional arrest, refer to opinions expressed or votes cast in the performance of his duties as a MEP (May - July 2004).
a) It is not possible to say that the charges brought against Mr Pęczak, which are at the origin of his detention and provisional arrest, refer to opinions expressed or votes cast in the performance of his duties as a MEP (May - July 2004).
Mr Pęczak does not claim that in his letter .
Mr Pęczak does not claim that in his letter.
The information available suggest that the proceedings concern corruption practices in the period before the time when he was Member of the European Parliament.
The information available suggest that the proceedings concern corruption practices in the period before the time when he was Member of the European Parliament.
According to various media reports, Mr Pęczak is charged with receiving in April 2004 up to 500 000 PLN (125 000€ being the value of a luxury Mercedes car placed at his disposal) for arranging certain outcomes in the privatisation process of the Polish energy sector.
According to various media reports, Mr Pęczak is charged with receiving in April 2004 up to 500 000 PLN (125 000€ being the value of a luxury Mercedes car placed at his disposal) for arranging certain outcomes in the privatisation process of the Polish energy sector.
b) The Polish Parliament (Sejm) adopted the decision to waive Mr Pęczak's immunity on 19 November 2004 in response to an application from the Public Prosecutor's office issued on 22 October 2004 and transmitted to the Sejm on October 27th.
b) The Polish Parliament (Sejm) adopted the decision to waive Mr Pęczak's immunity on 19 November 2004 in response to an application from the Public Prosecutor's office issued on 22 October 2004 and transmitted to the Sejm on October 27th.
At that time Mr Pęczak was not a Member of the European Parliament.
At that time Mr Pęczak was not a Member of the European Parliament.
This protection is granted only to Members during the period of their mandate and not afterwards.
This protection is granted only to Members during the period of their mandate and not afterwards.
The letter of Mr Pęczak does not claim this privilege and it is, in any event, clearly not applicable.
The letter of Mr Pęczak does not claim this privilege and it is, in any event, clearly not applicable.
2) Article 9 grants inviolability to Members in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties .
2) Article 9 grants inviolability to Members in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties.
This protection extends beyond the duration of the mandate but always within the restricted scope expressed by the plain language of the Article.
This protection extends beyond the duration of the mandate but always within the restricted scope expressed by the plain language of the Article.
What is protected is Member 's opinions or votes in Parliament , even when they are not physically within the premises of the House, but always when they are acting entirely as parliamentarians.
What is protected is Member's opinions or votes in Parliament , even when they are not physically within the premises of the House, but always when they are acting entirely as parliamentarians.
Mr Pęczak makes no reference to any of the indicated areas of activity protected, although he mentions some documents of his parliamentary work in the Sejm and NATO Assembly being seized by the Public Prosecutor's office as evidence.
Mr Pęczak makes no reference to any of the indicated areas of activity protected, although he mentions some documents of his parliamentary work in the Sejm and NATO Assembly being seized by the Public Prosecutor's office as evidence.
3) Article 10 declares that [ d ] uring the sessions of the European Parliament its Members shall enjoy : a) in the territory of their own State , the immunities accorded to members of their parliament... .
3) Article 10 declares that [ d ] uring the sessions of the European Parliament its Members shall enjoy: a) in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament... .
As it can clearly be established, the criminal proceeding against Mr Pęczak in Poland, setting aside his reference to the Prosecutor's application in June 2004, took place after he was a Member of the EP.
As it can clearly be established, the criminal proceeding against Mr Pęczak in Poland, setting aside his reference to the Prosecutor's application in June 2004, took place after he was a Member of the EP.
1) and its Rules of Procedure.
1) and its Rules of Procedure.
Doubts about the legality of the proceedings before the District Court should be resolved by the Polish judiciary within the available legal means.
Doubts about the legality of the proceedings before the District Court should be resolved by the Polish judiciary within the available legal means.
They are, in any case, beyond the possible scope of action to be taken by the European Parliament.
They are, in any case, beyond the possible scope of action to be taken by the European Parliament.
Mr Pęczak claimed that there is a political motivation of the charges brought against him ( fumus persecutionis ).
Mr Pęczak claimed that there is a political motivation of the charges brought against him ( fumus persecutionis ).
As he is no longer a Member of the European Parliament, his allegation of being politically prosecuted cannot be examined by the Committee on Legal Affairs.
As he is no longer a Member of the European Parliament, his allegation of being politically prosecuted cannot be examined by the Committee on Legal Affairs.
It belongs to the Polish Courts to evaluate it and, ultimately, judge it.
It belongs to the Polish Courts to evaluate it and, ultimately, judge it.
Moreover , it is difficult to imagine Article 10 being applicable to former Members of Parliament.
Moreover, it is difficult to imagine Article 10 being applicable to former Members of Parliament.
No case-law exists for this situation.
No case-law exists for this situation.
When a Member ceases to be an MEP, it is possible that he needs to be defended from an attack against him for an opinion or a vote in Parliament (that is why Rule 6§3 provides for that situation) but it is difficult to extend the protection beyond Article 9 of the Protocol.
When a Member ceases to be an MEP, it is possible that he needs to be defended from an attack against him for an opinion or a vote in Parliament (that is why Rule 6§3 provides for that situation) but it is difficult to extend the protection beyond Article 9 of the Protocol.
Article 8 and 10 seem to be limited by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice and the case-law of the Committee on Legal Affairs to active Members of Parliament during parliamentary sessions.
Article 8 and 10 seem to be limited by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice and the case-law of the Committee on Legal Affairs to active Members of Parliament during parliamentary sessions.
On the basis of the above considerations and pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Rules of Procedure, after considering the reasons for and against defending the former Member's immunity, the Committee on Legal Affairs recommends that the European Parliament should not defend the parliamentary immunity of Andrzej Pęczak.
On the basis of the above considerations and pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Rules of Procedure, after considering the reasons for and against defending the former Member's immunity, the Committee on Legal Affairs recommends that the European Parliament should not defend the parliamentary immunity of Andrzej Pęczak.
Žádost o ochranu imunity a výsad Andrzeje Pęczaka
Request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Andrzej Pęczak
Žádost o zbavení imunity, kterou předložil Datum předložení Datum oznámení na zasedání
Request for defence of immunity from Date of request Date announced in plenary
Andrzej Pęczak 18.4.2005 25.5.2005
Andrzej Pęczak 18.4.2005 25.5.2005
JURI 25.5.2005
JURI 25.5.2005
3 a článek 7
Rules 6(3) and 7
Maria Berger 15.6.2005
Maria Berger 15.6.2005
13 0 0
13 0 0
Maria Berger, Bert Doorn, Giuseppe Gargani, Kurt Lechner, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Aloyzas Sakalas, Nicola Zingaretti, Tadeusz Zwiefka
Maria Berger, Bert Doorn, Giuseppe Gargani, Kurt Lechner, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Aloyzas Sakalas, Nicola Zingaretti, Tadeusz Zwiefka
PE 364.662v02-00
PE 364.662v02-00
o žádosti o ochranu imunity a výsad Giovanniho Claudia Favy
on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Giovanni Claudio Fava
– s ohledem na žádost Giovanniho Claudia Favy o ochranu imunity předloženou dne 1. července 2005 a oznámenou na plenárním zasedání dne 6. července 2005,
– having regard to the request by Giovanni Claudio Fava for defence of his immunity of 1 July 2005, announced in plenary sitting on 6 July 2005,
– s ohledem na zprávu Výboru pro právní záležitosti ( A6‑0331/2005 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0331/2005 ),
At the sitting of 6 July 2005, the President of Parliament announced that he had received a request for the defence of the Parliamentary immunity of Giovanni Claudio Fava MEP by letter of 1 July 2005, which was duly forwarded to the Committee for Legal Affairs.
At the sitting of 6 July 2005, the President of Parliament announced that he had received a request for the defence of the Parliamentary immunity of Giovanni Claudio Fava MEP by letter of 1 July 2005, which was duly forwarded to the Committee for Legal Affairs.
The request relates to proceedings which have been brought in the Tribunale Civile di Palermo against Mr Fava, as manager of the review Itaca , where he is being sued for defamation by an elected office-holder of the Region of Sicily, Mr Cintola, a member of the political party, Unione dei Democratici Cristiani e Democratici di Centro, and Assessore al Bilancio e alle Finanze of the Region of Sicily.
The request relates to proceedings which have been brought in the Tribunale Civile di Palermo against Mr Fava, as manager of the review Itaca , where he is being sued for defamation by an elected office-holder of the Region of Sicily, Mr Cintola, a member of the political party, Unione dei Democratici Cristiani e Democratici di Centro, and Assessore al Bilancio e alle Finanze of the Region of Sicily.
Mr Cintola is claiming damages of EUR 1,000,000.
Mr Cintola is claiming damages of EUR 1,000,000.
In an article which he wrote for Itaca , entitled "Below the belt" (which is also a pun on Mr Cintola's name), Mr Fava reported that the police had filmed and bugged Mr Cintola receiving from a well-known tax adviser an envelope containing EUR 25,000.
In an article which he wrote for Itaca , entitled "Below the belt" (which is also a pun on Mr Cintola's name), Mr Fava reported that the police had filmed and bugged Mr Cintola receiving from a well-known tax adviser an envelope containing EUR 25,000.
According to the article, the tax adviser had been under investigation for a case of money laundering some weeks before.
According to the article, the tax adviser had been under investigation for a case of money laundering some weeks before.
When giving testimony as a witness in that case, Mr Cintola said that the money was a loan, but the other party testified that it had never been repaid.
When giving testimony as a witness in that case, Mr Cintola said that the money was a loan, but the other party testified that it had never been repaid.
On the basis of this, Mr Fava questions in an article published in his review Itaca, which is also accessible on the Internet, Mr Cintola's suitability to hold the post of Assessore al bilancio for the Region of Sicily. "..Would you give such a man your car keys?
On the basis of this, Mr Fava questions in an article published in his review Itaca, which is also accessible on the Internet, Mr Cintola's suitability to hold the post of Assessore al bilancio for the Region of Sicily. "..Would you give such a man your car keys?
You wouldn't, would you?
You wouldn't, would you?
Well, in Sicily he has been given him the keys to the regional budget, a few billion euro or thereabouts".
Well, in Sicily he has been given him the keys to the regional budget, a few billion euro or thereabouts".
The case against Mr Fava (and other owners of newspapers and periodicals) has been brought in a civil court, but the damages sought (EUR 1,000,000) are based, it would seem, at least in part on Article 12 of Law No 47 of 1948 on the press, which allows the defamed party to apply for damages on the basis of the Criminal Code.
The case against Mr Fava (and other owners of newspapers and periodicals) has been brought in a civil court, but the damages sought (EUR 1,000,000) are based, it would seem, at least in part on Article 12 of Law No 47 of 1948 on the press, which allows the defamed party to apply for damages on the basis of the Criminal Code.
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 other Member States, immunity from any measure or detention and from legal proceedings.
b . in the territory of other Member States, immunity from any measure or detention and from legal proceedings.
In his summons lodged with the Tribunale Civile of Palermo, the complainant seeks punitive damages of EUR 1,000,000 against a series of defendants, including Mr Fava, for allegedly libelling a public office-holder in his region.
In his summons lodged with the Tribunale Civile of Palermo, the complainant seeks punitive damages of EUR 1,000,000 against a series of defendants, including Mr Fava, for allegedly libelling a public office-holder in his region.
The complainant argues that the libel is particularly serious on account of the fact that he is a regional councillor and that the resultant serious damage to his image could cause genuine social alarm to be felt by citizens with regard to the public role of the department for which he is responsible.
The complainant argues that the libel is particularly serious on account of the fact that he is a regional councillor and that the resultant serious damage to his image could cause genuine social alarm to be felt by citizens with regard to the public role of the department for which he is responsible.
It is clear, however, that in his article published in Itaca , Mr Fava merely reproduced facts which had been published in connection with separate court proceedings and hence in the public domain and then commented on them, drawing inferences with a regard to a politician's suitability to hold public office in his region.
It is clear, however, that in his article published in Itaca , Mr Fava merely reproduced facts which had been published in connection with separate court proceedings and hence in the public domain and then commented on them, drawing inferences with a regard to a politician's suitability to hold public office in his region.
In so doing he was carrying out his duty as a Member of Parliament in expressing his opinion on a matter of public interest to his constituents.
In so doing he was carrying out his duty as a Member of Parliament in expressing his opinion on a matter of public interest to his constituents.
Moreover, the fact that the subject of his article was the behaviour of a politician and the holder of a public office brings this article within the realm of legitimate political debate.
Moreover, the fact that the subject of his article was the behaviour of a politician and the holder of a public office brings this article within the realm of legitimate political debate.
On the basis of the above considerations, the Committee on Legal Affairs, having examined the reasons for and against defending immunity, recommends that the immunity of Mr Giovanni Claudio Fava be defended.
On the basis of the above considerations, the Committee on Legal Affairs, having examined the reasons for and against defending immunity, recommends that the immunity of Mr Giovanni Claudio Fava be defended.
Žádost o ochranu imunity a výsad Giovanniho Claudia Favy
Request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Giovanni Claudio Fava
Giovanni Claudio Fava 1.7.2005 6.7.2005
Giovanni Claudio Fava 1.7.2005 6.7.2005
JURI 6.7.2005
JURI 6.7.2005
Klaus-Heiner Lehne 13.7.2005
Klaus-Heiner Lehne 13.7.2005
PE 360.349v02-00
PE 360.349v02-00
VYSVĚTLUJÍCÍ PROHLÁŠENÍ..............................................................................................14
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT..............................................................................................13
k návrhu nařízení Evropského parlamentu a Rady o statistice Společenství o struktuře a činnosti zahraničních přidružených společností
on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community statistics on the structure and activity of foreign affiliates
– s ohledem na návrh Komise předložený Evropskému parlamentu a Radě ( KOM(2005)0088 )
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council ( COM(2005)0088 )
– s ohledem na zprávu Hospodářského a měnového výboru ( A6‑0332/2005 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs ( A6‑0332/2005 ),