natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The law applicable is the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities (PPI) of 8 April 1965, the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament and the European Parliament practice on dealing with immunity issues.
The law applicable is the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities (PPI) of 8 April 1965, the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament and the European Parliament practice on dealing with immunity issues.
It has to be pointed out, in the first place, that there has never been a single request for waiving immunity from the UK.
It has to be pointed out, in the first place, that there has never been a single request for waiving immunity from the UK.
There is also very little case law on Article 8 and nothing relating to Article 8 (1).
There is also very little case law on Article 8 and nothing relating to Article 8 (1).
In essence it has to be considered by Parliament:
In essence it has to be considered by Parliament:
a) Whether or not Mr Mote enjoys European immunity under Article 8 or Article 10-second paragraph,
a) Whether or not Mr Mote enjoys European immunity under Article 8 or Article 10-second paragraph,
b) In case that he enjoys it, whether it is appropriate or not to waive it,
b) In case that he enjoys it, whether it is appropriate or not to waive it,
c) Whether or not he is protected by any other Article of the Protocol or by parliamentary practice,
c) Whether or not he is protected by any other Article of the Protocol or by parliamentary practice,
As regards Article 8 and Article 10, -second paragraph, it is useful to note the purpose of immunity as it has been defined since the Donnez report in 1986
As regards Article 8 and Article 10, -second paragraph, it is useful to note the purpose of immunity as it has been defined since the Donnez report in 1986
Document A2-0121/1986 . : Parliamentary immunity is not a Member's personal privilege, but a guarantee of the independence of Parliament and its Members in relation to other authorities, and with a view to explore whether immunity has to be waived or not, the principle set by Parliament over the years is that of the independence of European parliamentary immunity from national parliamentary immunity.
Document A2-0121/1986 . : Parliamentary immunity is not a Member's personal privilege, but a guarantee of the independence of Parliament and its Members in relation to other authorities, and with a view to explore whether immunity has to be waived or not, the principle set by Parliament over the years is that of the independence of European parliamentary immunity from national parliamentary immunity.
Therefore, when the effect of the proceedings brought against a Member is to diminish his own or Parliament's independence, immunity should not be waived.
Therefore, when the effect of the proceedings brought against a Member is to diminish his own or Parliament's independence, immunity should not be waived.
It follows from this that the EP must not concern itself with the substance of the criminal proceedings except when considering whether or not "fumus persecutionis" may exist.
It follows from this that the EP must not concern itself with the substance of the criminal proceedings except when considering whether or not "fumus persecutionis" may exist.
Articles 8 and 10, second paragraph protect Parliament's independence, granting Members of Parliament certain rights not necessarily covered by Articles 9 and 10 a) and b)
Articles 8 and 10, second paragraph protect Parliament's independence, granting Members of Parliament certain rights not necessarily covered by Articles 9 and 10 a) and b)
It is important to examine which kind of privileges these two Articles may reasonably cover:
It is important to examine which kind of privileges these two Articles may reasonably cover:
a) With respect to Article 10 second paragraph, it is linked to the first paragraph of Article 10 and completes the immunity grated in letters a) and b).
a) With respect to Article 10 second paragraph, it is linked to the first paragraph of Article 10 and completes the immunity grated in letters a) and b).
When a Member is in the territory of their own state, she/he enjoys the immunities granted to the Members of her/his Parliament.
When a Member is in the territory of their own state, she/he enjoys the immunities granted to the Members of her/his Parliament.
When in the territory of another state (i.e. giving a conference or in a demonstration), from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings.
When in the territory of another state (i.e. giving a conference or in a demonstration), from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings.
Immunity is also applied when the members are travelling to or from the place of meeting of the European Parliament, as it is declared in the second paragraph of Article 10.
Immunity is also applied when the members are travelling to or from the place of meeting of the European Parliament, as it is declared in the second paragraph of Article 10.
Mr Mote was not travelling from England to France when he committed the wrongful acts alleged by the Prosecutor.
Mr Mote was not travelling from England to France when he committed the wrongful acts alleged by the Prosecutor.
He was not travelling at all.
He was not travelling at all.
This argumentation is also admitted by the Court which does not consider it necessary to request Parliament to waive immunity on the basis of Article 10(2) (see point 44 of Annex 4 of Application).
This argumentation is also admitted by the Court which does not consider it necessary to request Parliament to waive immunity on the basis of Article 10(2) (see point 44 of Annex 4 of Application).
Mr Mote cannot be reasonably protected by the Article 10, second paragraph.
Mr Mote cannot be reasonably protected by the Article 10, second paragraph.
b) With respect to Article 8 of the Protocol, which is the one strongly invoiced by Mr Mote's Attorney, and at the core of the Prosecutor's Application, it should be considered whether or not this article gives protection to Mr Mote against prosecution in UK.
b) With respect to Article 8 of the Protocol, which is the one strongly invoiced by Mr Mote's Attorney, and at the core of the Prosecutor's Application, it should be considered whether or not this article gives protection to Mr Mote against prosecution in UK.
Article 8 is clearly intended to ensure the freedom of movement of Members.
Article 8 is clearly intended to ensure the freedom of movement of Members.
It was drafted at a time when it was not as easy as nowadays for European citizens to move around the Union.
It was drafted at a time when it was not as easy as nowadays for European citizens to move around the Union.
Its main purpose is to prohibit restrictions of any kind on the free movement of Members.
Its main purpose is to prohibit restrictions of any kind on the free movement of Members.
This Article also provides protection on customs issues and exchange control facilities.
This Article also provides protection on customs issues and exchange control facilities.
The purpose of the Article 8 was to avoid any impediment when travelling within the Community in connection with the performance of their duties from their places of origin to any Parliament or official meeting in connection with their duties.
The purpose of the Article 8 was to avoid any impediment when travelling within the Community in connection with the performance of their duties from their places of origin to any Parliament or official meeting in connection with their duties.
It excluded travelling for personal ends.
It excluded travelling for personal ends.
These impediments must be those of administrative, police or custom nature.
These impediments must be those of administrative, police or custom nature.
Either inviolability or immunity of Articles 9 or 10 would have covered any other more serious impediment (arrest).
Either inviolability or immunity of Articles 9 or 10 would have covered any other more serious impediment (arrest).
As it is rightly pointed out in point 19 of the Application, Article 8 is not intended to provide an absolute immunity against prosecution during the duration of a trial.
As it is rightly pointed out in point 19 of the Application, Article 8 is not intended to provide an absolute immunity against prosecution during the duration of a trial.
Otherwise, the provisions that refer to inviolability (Article 9) and immunity (Article 10) would be without purpose during the duration of Parliament (5 years).
Otherwise, the provisions that refer to inviolability (Article 9) and immunity (Article 10) would be without purpose during the duration of Parliament (5 years).
Article 8 should be interpreted in connection with the principle stated above in point 3 and with Article 9 and 10 in a way that these Articles are not deprived of meaning and logical sense.
Article 8 should be interpreted in connection with the principle stated above in point 3 and with Article 9 and 10 in a way that these Articles are not deprived of meaning and logical sense.
It can therefore be concluded that Mr Mote does not enjoy protection against prosecution from Article 8 and that the proceedings may be pursued by the Court.
It can therefore be concluded that Mr Mote does not enjoy protection against prosecution from Article 8 and that the proceedings may be pursued by the Court.
Moreover, Mr Mote has only been subject to "unconditional bail", he has not been subject to any form of pre-trial detention.
Moreover, Mr Mote has only been subject to "unconditional bail", he has not been subject to any form of pre-trial detention.
It can be argued that if the Court intends to use in the future such precautionary measures, the authorisation of Parliament should be required.
It can be argued that if the Court intends to use in the future such precautionary measures, the authorisation of Parliament should be required.
It can also be argued that the Court has to ensure that Mr Mote may attend the plenary sessions.
It can also be argued that the Court has to ensure that Mr Mote may attend the plenary sessions.
This is a possible interpretation, though too expansive and adventurous, of Article 8 (1).
This is a possible interpretation, though too expansive and adventurous, of Article 8 (1).
Such an interpretation of Article 8 would be completely new and would introduce a new form of immunity for Members with legal basis in an Article until now not seen as intended to provide immunity, but certain privileges that facilitate the freedom of movement of Members and for Members not subject to judicial prosecution: For those situations there exists the provisions of Articles 9 and 10.
Such an interpretation of Article 8 would be completely new and would introduce a new form of immunity for Members with legal basis in an Article until now not seen as intended to provide immunity, but certain privileges that facilitate the freedom of movement of Members and for Members not subject to judicial prosecution: For those situations there exists the provisions of Articles 9 and 10.
When Parliament has decided not to defend immunity (see later cases Pannella or Dupuis) or not to waive immunity (see Florentz or Jeggle cases), it has not envisaged to ask Courts to guarantee Member's rights to assists plenary sessions or other Parliament's meetings.
When Parliament has decided not to defend immunity (see later cases Pannella or Dupuis) or not to waive immunity (see Florentz or Jeggle cases), it has not envisaged to ask Courts to guarantee Member's rights to assists plenary sessions or other Parliament's meetings.
If the House wants to introduce this new possibility (that while a Member is on trial and the waiving of immunity has been requested and accepted by Parliament, the Court should guarantee the right to attend parliament's meetings), then it should consider to do it through the EP's right and autonomy to waive or not immunity or to waive it in a conditional way.
If the House wants to introduce this new possibility (that while a Member is on trial and the waiving of immunity has been requested and accepted by Parliament, the Court should guarantee the right to attend parliament's meetings), then it should consider to do it through the EP's right and autonomy to waive or not immunity or to waive it in a conditional way.
This new right of Members would then be established through Article 10 1 a), as it has been done with, for example, the fumus persecutionis.
This new right of Members would then be established through Article 10 1 a), as it has been done with, for example, the fumus persecutionis .
Anyhow, in this particular case the Court has shown its readiness to ensure Mr Mote's attendance to plenary (see point 22 of the Application) and it is not necessary to consider such an extension of immunity rights.
Anyhow, in this particular case the Court has shown its readiness to ensure Mr Mote's attendance to plenary (see point 22 of the Application) and it is not necessary to consider such an extension of immunity rights.
Mr Mote has not claimed either way - neither the Court- that he may be protected by Article 9.
Mr Mote has not claimed either way - neither the Court- that he may be protected by Article 9.
This Article is not obviously applicable here and we should exclude it right away.
This Article is not obviously applicable here and we should exclude it right away.
On the contrary, Article 10 a) would be applicable to Mr Mote but would not provide him with any kind of immunity.
On the contrary, Article 10 a) would be applicable to Mr Mote but would not provide him with any kind of immunity.
It refers back to British law and we already know that no protection at all is given to British MPs in these circumstances (see point 32 of the Application and point 2 of Annex 4).
It refers back to British law and we already know that no protection at all is given to British MPs in these circumstances (see point 32 of the Application and point 2 of Annex 4).
Mr Mote's defence has also accepted this situation(see point 28 of Annex 4).
Mr Mote's defence has also accepted this situation(see point 28 of Annex 4).
It may also be said that the British Judge would have not been obliged, under Article 10 a) to request the waiving of Mr Mote's immunity to proceed against him, except, perhaps, if the Court would have had doubts about the intentions of the Prosecutor or any other actors (which obviously is not the case).
It may also be said that the British Judge would have not been obliged, under Article 10 a) to request the waiving of Mr Mote's immunity to proceed against him, except, perhaps, if the Court would have had doubts about the intentions of the Prosecutor or any other actors (which obviously is not the case).
Nevertheless, once the request has been presented, there is no obstacle for the European Parliament to consider other issues i.e. whether a Member's immunity should be waived or not, as it has been done.
Nevertheless, once the request has been presented, there is no obstacle for the European Parliament to consider other issues i.e. whether a Member's immunity should be waived or not, as it has been done.
Article 19 of PPI states that the Institutions will cooperate with the authorities of the Member States and Rule 7(2) of the Rules of Procedure says that the committee responsible "shall make a proposal for a decision which simply recommends the adoption or the rejection of the request".
Article 19 of PPI states that the Institutions will cooperate with the authorities of the Member States and Rule 7(2) of the Rules of Procedure says that the committee responsible "shall make a proposal for a decision which simply recommends the adoption or the rejection of the request".
It is appropriate then for the Parliament to decide whether or not the request has to be accepted or rejected.
It is appropriate then for the Parliament to decide whether or not the request has to be accepted or rejected.
Article 8 (1) does not grant protection against judicial prosecution.
Article 8 (1) does not grant protection against judicial prosecution.
Article 8 is not intended to provide an absolute immunity against prosecution during the duration of a trial.
Article 8 is not intended to provide an absolute immunity against prosecution during the duration of a trial.
Otherwise, the provisions that refer to inviolability (Article 9) and immunity (Article 10) would be useless.
Otherwise, the provisions that refer to inviolability (Article 9) and immunity (Article 10) would be useless.
It may be excluded that Mr Mote enjoys protection by inviolability provisions (Article 9 of the PPI) or parliamentary immunity (Article 10 a).
It may be excluded that Mr Mote enjoys protection by inviolability provisions (Article 9 of the PPI) or parliamentary immunity (Article 10 a).
Likewise Members of the British Parliament, he does not enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution.
Likewise Members of the British Parliament, he does not enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution.
Once the request has been presented, there is no obstacle for the European Parliament to consider any other issues and to waive or not the immunity.
Once the request has been presented, there is no obstacle for the European Parliament to consider any other issues and to waive or not the immunity.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, and pursuant to Rule 7(1) ant (2) of the Rules of Procedure, after having considered the arguments for an against waiving immunity, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market recommends that the European Parliament waive Mr Ashley Mote's parliamentary immunity.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, and pursuant to Rule 7(1) ant (2) of the Rules of Procedure, after having considered the arguments for an against waiving immunity, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market recommends that the European Parliament waive Mr Ashley Mote's parliamentary immunity.
Žádost týkající se zbavení pana Ashleyho Mota imunity
Request for waiver of the immunity of Ashley Mote
Žádost of zpětvzetí od Datum of request Datum oznámení na zasedání
Request for waiver from Date of request Date announced in plenary
Generální prokurátor Spojeného království
Attorney General of the United Kingdom
JURI 23.2.2005
JURI 23.2.2005
proti:0 zdrželi se: 0
against:0 abstentions: 0
Barbara Kudrycka, Evelin Lichtenberger
Barbara Kudrycka, Evelin Lichtenberger
o návrhu rozhodnutí Rady o uzavření dohody mezi Evropským společenstvím a Albánskou republikou o navrácení osob s nepovoleným pobytem
on the proposal for a Council decision concerning the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Albania on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation
PE 359.922v02-00
PE 359.922v02-00
– s ohledem na zprávu Výboru pro občanské svobody, spravedlnost a vnitřní věci a na stanovisko Výboru pro zahraniční věci ( A6‑0214/2005 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs ( A6‑0214/2005 ),
Political and legal context of the readmission agreement with Albania
Political and legal context of the readmission agreement with Albania
The readmission agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Albania is the forth readmission agreement negotiated and concluded by the European Community with a non-Member State.
The readmission agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Albania is the forth readmission agreement negotiated and concluded by the European Community with a non-Member State.
Agreements of this type form part of the wider strategy of combating illegal immigration, agreed upon by the Summits held in Tampere (15-16 October 1999), Laeken (14-15 December 2001), Seville (21-22 June 2002) and Thessaloniki (19-20 June 2003) and set out in the Council's action plan of 28 February 2002.
Agreements of this type form part of the wider strategy of combating illegal immigration, agreed upon by the Summits held in Tampere (15-16 October 1999), Laeken (14-15 December 2001), Seville (21-22 June 2002) and Thessaloniki (19-20 June 2003) and set out in the Council's action plan of 28 February 2002.
Based on the Community's new powers under Article 63(3)(b) TEC, the Council has so far authorised the Commission to negotiate Community readmission agreements with 11 third countries/entities: Morocco, Sri Lanka , Russia, Pakistan (September 2000), Hong Kong, Macao (May 2001), Ukraine (June 2002) and Albania, Algeria, China, Turkey (November 2002).
Based on the Community's new powers under Article 63(3)(b) TEC, the Council has so far authorised the Commission to negotiate Community readmission agreements with 11 third countries/entities: Morocco, Sri Lanka , Russia, Pakistan (September 2000), Hong Kong, Macao (May 2001), Ukraine (June 2002) and Albania, Algeria, China, Turkey (November 2002).
To date, negotiations have been completed with four countries: Hong Kong (November 2001), Macao (October 2002), Sri Lanka (May 2002) and Albania (November 2003).
To date, negotiations have been completed with four countries: Hong Kong (November 2001), Macao (October 2002), Sri Lanka (May 2002) and Albania (November 2003).
Agreements with Hong Kong and Macao entered already into force respectively on 1 March 2004 and 1 June 2004.
Agreements with Hong Kong and Macao entered already into force respectively on 1 March 2004 and 1 June 2004.
Agreements with Sri Lanka and Albania would enter into force in 2005.
Agreements with Sri Lanka and Albania would enter into force in 2005.
The European Commission in the Hague Programme: Ten priorities for the next five years (COM(184)2005) indicates the creation of a Commission Special Representative for a common readmission policy in 200 5.
The European Commission in the Hague Programme: Ten priorities for the next five years (COM(184)2005) indicates the creation of a Commission Special Representative for a common readmission policy in 200 5.
In the same programme the Commission foresees "specific recommendations for negotiating directives on visa facilitation with third countries in the context of the EC readmission policy, where possible and on the basis of reciprocity, in view of developing a real partnership on migration management issues".
In the same programme the Commission foresees "specific recommendations for negotiating directives on visa facilitation with third countries in the context of the EC readmission policy, where possible and on the basis of reciprocity, in view of developing a real partnership on migration management issues".
It appears in the programme that the Commission intend to launch new mandate for further readmission agreements.
It appears in the programme that the Commission intend to launch new mandate for further readmission agreements.
The agreement with Albania
The agreement with Albania
According to the International Organisations for migrants (IOM), Albania will face considerable difficulties in implementing the EC/ Albania Readmission Agreement when it comes into force in 2005.
According to the International Organisations for migrants (IOM), Albania will face considerable difficulties in implementing the EC/ Albania Readmission Agreement when it comes into force in 2005.
In particular it faces a shortage of human and material resources, which are necessary to process requests from EC member states.
In particular it faces a shortage of human and material resources, which are necessary to process requests from EC member states.
Furthermore, the newly created entity responsible for the implementation of Readmission Agreements lacks experience in implementing existing bilateral agreements and in implementing forced return in general.
Furthermore, the newly created entity responsible for the implementation of Readmission Agreements lacks experience in implementing existing bilateral agreements and in implementing forced return in general.
Regarding the coming into force of the third country clause in 2007, the Albanian authorities have already expressed their concern that removal is simply not possible due to the high costs this incurs.
Regarding the coming into force of the third country clause in 2007, the Albanian authorities have already expressed their concern that removal is simply not possible due to the high costs this incurs.