natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Dr. Zelezný asserts that the three cases are linked (the two other cases are dealt with in two other reports).
Dr. Zelezný asserts that the three cases are linked (the two other cases are dealt with in two other reports).
In his written presentation to the Committee, Dr. Zelezný pointed out that the police investigation on him has been purposely protracted for years and years to keep opponents away from fair political competition.
In his written presentation to the Committee, Dr. Zelezný pointed out that the police investigation on him has been purposely protracted for years and years to keep opponents away from fair political competition.
Dr. Zelezný also claims that the cases against him are groundless and artificially perpetuated with a view to damaging his political career.
Dr. Zelezný also claims that the cases against him are groundless and artificially perpetuated with a view to damaging his political career.
The Minister of Justice, in reply to the questions submitted by the Committee on Legal Affairs, responded to most of the observations made by Dr. Zelezný, stating its conviction that the bodies active in criminal proceedings conducted against Dr. Zelezný have acted in accordance with the law and have in no way been influenced by the Government or by its Members.
The Minister of Justice, in reply to the questions submitted by the Committee on Legal Affairs, responded to most of the observations made by Dr. Zelezný, stating its conviction that the bodies active in criminal proceedings conducted against Dr. Zelezný have acted in accordance with the law and have in no way been influenced by the Government or by its Members.
( 1 ) OJ No C 99, 13.4.1987, p.
( 1 ) OJ No C 99, 13.4.1987, p.
44 1 ) on the basis of Mr Donnez's report on the draft Protocol revising the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965 in respect of Members of the European Parliament ( A2‑121/86 ).
44 1 ) on the basis of Mr Donnez's report on the draft Protocol revising the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965 in respect of Members of the European Parliament ( A2‑121/86 ).
It seems useful to remind the principles that are applicable to the case under consideration, stressing the need for decisions on waivers of immunity to have a sound legal basis so that they are not influenced by considerations relating to political affiliation and even the nationality of the Member concerned.
It seems useful to remind the principles that are applicable to the case under consideration, stressing the need for decisions on waivers of immunity to have a sound legal basis so that they are not influenced by considerations relating to political affiliation and even the nationality of the Member concerned.
A. Purpose of parliamentary immunity
A. Purpose of parliamentary immunity
B. Time limit on immunity
B. Time limit on immunity
From the two judgements of the Court (Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier of 12 May 1964, 101/63, ECR 1964, p.
From the two judgements of the Court (Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier of 12 May 1964, 101/63, ECR 1964, p.
397, and Wybot v Faure of 10 July 1986, 149/85, ECR 1986, p.
397, and Wybot v Faure of 10 July 1986, 149/85, ECR 1986, p.
2403), it may be inferred that Parliament holds an annual session during which its Members, even during the periods when the session is interrupted, enjoy the immunity provided for in the above Protocol.
2403), it may be inferred that Parliament holds an annual session during which its Members, even during the periods when the session is interrupted, enjoy the immunity provided for in the above Protocol.
C. Independent nature of European parliamentary immunity compared with national parliamentary immunity
C. Independent nature of European parliamentary immunity compared with national parliamentary immunity
In the case of Dr Zelezný it is clear from the information provided by the Czech Senate that that Chamber gave its consent to the criminal prosecution of Senator Zelezný for acts which are the same that now are described in the application of the Prague Court.
In the case of Dr Zelezný it is clear from the information provided by the Czech Senate that that Chamber gave its consent to the criminal prosecution of Senator Zelezný for acts which are the same that now are described in the application of the Prague Court.
The fact of that the Senate has already waived Dr Zelezný immunity is, in accordance with Article 10 ( a) of the IPP, a patent indication that he does not enjoy parliamentary immunity in the territory of his own state.
The fact of that the Senate has already waived Dr Zelezný immunity is, in accordance with Article 10 ( a) of the IPP, a patent indication that he does not enjoy parliamentary immunity in the territory of his own state.
In Dr Zelezný's declares that his prosecution in this case (and in the two other cases) is politically motivated.
In Dr Zelezný's declares that his prosecution in this case (and in the two other cases) is politically motivated.
Dr Zelezný's case is of a certain intricacy because of the complex nature of the crimes of which stands accused, mostly related to supposed evasion of taxes and other duties.
Dr Zelezný's case is of a certain intricacy because of the complex nature of the crimes of which stands accused, mostly related to supposed evasion of taxes and other duties.
Nevertheless, there are certain aspects to the case, as pointed out by Dr Zelezný ( some disproportionate reaction from the police on his arrest, the rather obscure situation of other main accused, Mr Novotný, certain police harassment and the length of the proceedings), that have demanded a thorough exam by the committee, but, as said above, the response from the Senate and the explanations from the Minister of Justice make the rapporteur inclined to advise Parliament to waive the immunity of Dr Zelezný.
Nevertheless, there are certain aspects to the case, as pointed out by Dr Zelezný ( some disproportionate reaction from the police on his arrest, the rather obscure situation of other main accused, Mr Novotný, certain police harassment and the length of the proceedings), that have demanded a thorough exam by the committee, but, as said above, the response from the Senate and the explanations from the Minister of Justice make the rapporteur inclined to advise Parliament to waive the immunity of Dr Zelezný.
In this complex case it might be in Parliament interest to allow Dr Zelezný to defend himself in the cases brought against him.
In this complex case it might be in Parliament interest to allow Dr Zelezný to defend himself in the cases brought against him.
But, also, and given the convoluted nature of the case, it might be necessary for Parliament to secure the situation of Dr Zelezný so that the proceedings against him do not perturb his work as an MEP.
But, also, and given the convoluted nature of the case, it might be necessary for Parliament to secure the situation of Dr Zelezný so that the proceedings against him do not perturb his work as an MEP.
11 The Judge has stated that "Dr Zelezný remains at liberty and there is no ground for his imprisonment, and nothing prevents him from continuing to perform his duties".
11 The Judge has stated that "Dr Zelezný remains at liberty and there is no ground for his imprisonment, and nothing prevents him from continuing to perform his duties".
It means that once final judgment is passed in this case, Dr Zelesný will have to face it in the same way as any other citizen without there be any need to request again the waive of his immunity.
It means that once final judgment is passed in this case, Dr Zelesný will have to face it in the same way as any other citizen without there be any need to request again the waive of his immunity.
In the light of the above considerations, pursuant Rule 7(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure, after having considered the arguments for and against waiving immunity, the JURI recommends that the EP waive Mr Vladimir Zelezný's parliamentary immunity, subject to the condition that the waiver of immunity shall apply solely to the prosecution proceedings and that, until such time as final sentence is given, Dr Zelesný must be immune from any form of detention or remand or any other measure which prevents him from performing the duties attaching to his mandate as a Member of the European Parliament.
In the light of the above considerations, pursuant Rule 7(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure, after having considered the arguments for and against waiving immunity, the JURI recommends that the EP waive Mr Vladimir Zelezný's parliamentary immunity, subject to the condition that the waiver of immunity shall apply solely to the prosecution proceedings and that, until such time as final sentence is given, Dr Zelesný must be immune from any form of detention or remand or any other measure which prevents him from performing the duties attaching to his mandate as a Member of the European Parliament.
Vladimír Železnýlt puutumatuse äravõtmise taotlus
Request for waiver of the immunity of Vladimír Železný
– võttes arvesse Vladimír Železnýlt puutumatuse äravõtmise taotlust toimikus nr KZv 2153/2001-2728, mille Praha prokurör edastas 27. augustil 2004 ning millest teatati 16. detsembri 2004. aasta täiskogu istungil;
– having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Vladimír Železný in file number KZv 2153/2001-2728, forwarded by Prague Public Prosecutor on 27 August 2004, and announced in plenary sitting on 16 December 2004,
– võttes arvesse Vladimír Železný esitatud ja 16. novembri 2004. aasta täiskogu istungil teatavaks tehtud taotlust kaitsta tema puutumatust seoses Praha prokuröri algatatud kriminaalasjaga;
– having regard to the request to defend his immunity presented by Vladimír Železný in connection with criminal proceedings brought by the Prague Public Prosecutor, and announced in plenary sitting on of 16 November 2004,
– võttes arvesse Tšehhi Vabariigi põhiseaduse artiklit 27;
– having regard to Article 27 of the constitution of the Czech Republic,
– võttes arvesse õiguskomisjoni raportit ( A6‑0290/2005 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0290/2005 ),
At the sitting of 16 December 2004, the President of the Parliament informed the House that he had received a letter from the Prague Public Prosecutor requesting the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Dr Vladimir Zelezný, in respect of file number KZv 2153/2001-2728 in the Register of the Prosecuting Attorney's Office.
At the sitting of 16 December 2004, the President of the Parliament informed the House that he had received a letter from the Prague Public Prosecutor requesting the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Dr Vladimir Zelezný, in respect of file number KZv 2153/2001-2728 in the Register of the Prosecuting Attorney's Office.
The Metropolitan Prosecuting Attorney's Office is requesting the waiver of parliamentary immunity in respect of the above-mentioned file on the ground that Dr Zelezný is believed to have committed acts constituting fraud on a creditor in 1999 and 2000.
The Metropolitan Prosecuting Attorney's Office is requesting the waiver of parliamentary immunity in respect of the above-mentioned file on the ground that Dr Zelezný is believed to have committed acts constituting fraud on a creditor in 1999 and 2000.
The application explains in detail the circumstances of Dr Zelezný's prosecution (Notice to Members 1/2005 ).
The application explains in detail the circumstances of Dr Zelezný's prosecution (Notice to Members 1/ 2005 ) .
In the application it is stressed that, in November 2002, during the criminal prosecution, Dr. Vladimir Zelezný was elected a Senator of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic.
In the application it is stressed that, in November 2002, during the criminal prosecution, Dr. Vladimir Zelezný was elected a Senator of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic.
Following the request of the police in charge of the investigation, the Senate granted its consent to the criminal prosecution of Dr Zelezný in January 2003.
Following the request of the police in charge of the investigation, the Senate granted its consent to the criminal prosecution of Dr Zelezný in January 2003.
Pursuant to Rule 7(3) of the Rules of Procedure, Dr Zelezný was heard by the Committee on Legal Affairs.
Pursuant to Rule 7(3) of the Rules of Procedure, Dr Zelezný was heard by the Committee on Legal Affairs.
At this hearing Dr Zelezný informed the committee of his views on the situation in his country with respect to him.
At this hearing Dr Zelezný informed the committee of his views on the situation in his country with respect to him.
Dr Zelezný has acknowledged that when he was Senator, a request to waive his parliamentary immunity was presented by the police and that he asked the Senate to waive his immunity on the hope that it would accelerate the investigation procedure.
Dr Zelezný has acknowledged that when he was Senator, a request to waive his parliamentary immunity was presented by the police and that he asked the Senate to waive his immunity on the hope that it would accelerate the investigation procedure.
The Senate waived the parliamentary immunity of Mr Zelezný apparently for the same acts as those considered at the present request.
The Senate waived the parliamentary immunity of Mr Zelezný apparently for the same acts as those considered at the present request.
At his appearance, Dr Zelezný declared that he had been a victim of political harassment and public intimidation for the last six years.
At his appearance, Dr Zelezný declared that he had been a victim of political harassment and public intimidation for the last six years.
Dr Zelezný asserts that the three cases are linked (the other two cases are dealt with in two other reports) between them.
Dr Zelezný asserts that the three cases are linked (the other two cases are dealt with in two other reports) between them.
In his written declaration, Dr. Zelezný points out that the police investigation on him has been purposely protracted for years and years to keep opponents away from fair political competition.
In his written declaration, Dr. Zelezný points out that the police investigation on him has been purposely protracted for years and years to keep opponents away from fair political competition.
Dr. Zelezný claims also that the cases against him are without ground and artificially perpetuated with a view to damaging his political career.
Dr. Zelezný claims also that the cases against him are without ground and artificially perpetuated with a view to damaging his political career.
The Minister of Justice, in reply to the questions submitted by the Committee on Legal Affairs, explains most of the observations made by Dr Zelezný and expressed its conviction that the bodies active in criminal proceedings conducted against Dr Zelezný have acted in accordance with the law and have in no way been influenced by the Government or by its Members.
The Minister of Justice, in reply to the questions submitted by the Committee on Legal Affairs, explains most of the observations made by Dr Zelezný and expressed its conviction that the bodies active in criminal proceedings conducted against Dr Zelezný have acted in accordance with the law and have in no way been influenced by the Government or by its Members.
Dr Zelezný's case is of a certain intricacy.
Dr Zelezný's case is of a certain intricacy.
Nevertheless, there are certain aspects to the case, as pointed out by Dr Zelezný ( some disproportionate reaction from the police on his arrest, the rather obscure situation of other main accused, Mr Novotný in the first case presented by the Prague Court, certain police harassment and the length of the proceedings), that have demanded a thorough exam by the committee, but, as said above, the response from the Senate and the explanations from the Minister of Justice make the rapporteur inclined to advise Parliament to waive the immunity of Dr Zelezný.
Nevertheless, there are certain aspects to the case, as pointed out by Dr Zelezný ( some disproportionate reaction from the police on his arrest, the rather obscure situation of other main accused, Mr Novotný in the first case presented by the Prague Court, certain police harassment and the length of the proceedings), that have demanded a thorough exam by the committee, but, as said above, the response from the Senate and the explanations from the Minister of Justice make the rapporteur inclined to advise Parliament to waive the immunity of Dr Zelezný.
Praha prokurör 27.8.2004 16.12.2004
Prague Public Prosecutor 27.8.2004 16.12.2004
– võttes arvesse Vladimír Železnýlt puutumatuse äravõtmise taotlust toimikus nr KZv 295/2003-243, mille Praha prokurör edastas 27. augustil 2004 ning millest teatati 16. detsembri 2004. aasta täiskogu istungil;
– having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Vladimír Železný in file number KZv 295/2003-243, forwarded by Prague Public Prosecutor on 27 August 2004, and announced in plenary sitting on 16 December 2004,
– võttes arvesse Vladimír Železný esitatud ja 16. novembri 2004. aasta täiskogu istungil teatavaks tehtud taotlust kaitsta tema puutumatust seoses Praha prokuröri algatatud kriminaalasjaga;
– having regard to the request to defend his immunity presented by Vladimír Železný in connection with criminal proceedings brought by the Prague Public Prosecutor, and announced in plenary sitting on 16 November 2004,
– võttes arvesse õiguskomisjoni raportit ( A6‑0291/2005 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs ( A6‑0291/2005 ),
At the sitting of 16 December 2004, the President of the Parliament informed the House that he had received a letter from the Prague Public Prosecutor requesting the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Dr Vladimir Zelezný in respect of file number KZv 295/2003-243 of the Register of the Prosecuting Attorney Office.
At the sitting of 16 December 2004, the President of the Parliament informed the House that he had received a letter from the Prague Public Prosecutor requesting the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of Dr Vladimir Zelezný in respect of file number KZv 295/2003-243 of the Register of the Prosecuting Attorney Office.
The Metropolitan Prosecuting Attorney's Office is requesting the waiver of parliamentary immunity in respect of the above-mentioned file on the ground that Dr Zelezný is believed to have committed acts constituting evasion of taxes, duties and other contributions under Section 148(1) and (3) of the Criminal Code up to 31 December 1997 and to had acted as an accomplice under Section 9(2) of the Criminal Code.
The Metropolitan Prosecuting Attorney's Office is requesting the waiver of parliamentary immunity in respect of the above-mentioned file on the ground that Dr Zelezný is believed to have committed acts constituting evasion of taxes, duties and other contributions under Section 148(1) and (3) of the Criminal Code up to 31 December 1997 and to had acted as an accomplice under Section 9(2) of the Criminal Code.
The Prague Public Prosecutor's Office, which is charged with the supervision of the pre-trial proceedings, is requesting that Dr. Zelesný's immunity be waived.
The Prague Public Prosecutor's Office, which is charged with the supervision of the pre-trial proceedings, is requesting that Dr. Zelesný's immunity be waived.
The application from the Prosecutor's Office explains in detail the charges brought by the police against Dr. Zelezný ( Notice to Members 2/2005).
The application from the Prosecutor's Office explains in detail the charges brought by the police against Dr. Zelezný ( Notice to Members 2/2005).
It is stressed by the Prosecutor that, in November 2003, during the course of the criminal proceedings, Dr Zelezný was elected Senator.
It is stressed by the Prosecutor that, in November 2003, during the course of the criminal proceedings, Dr Zelezný was elected Senator .
At the request of the Police authority, the Senate voted on 23 January 2003 to waive Dr. Zelezný's immunity and agreed to criminal proceedings against the Member.
At the request of the Police authority, the Senate voted on 23 January 2003 to waive Dr. Zelezný's immunity and agreed to criminal proceedings against the Member.
Pursuant to Rule 7(3) of the Rules of Procedure, Dr Zelezny was heard by the Committee on Legal Affairs.
Pursuant to Rule 7(3) of the Rules of Procedure, Dr Zelezny was heard by the Committee on Legal Affairs.
At this hearing Dr Zelezny informed the committee of his views on the situation in his country with respect to him.
At this hearing Dr Zelezny informed the committee of his views on the situation in his country with respect to him.
Dr. Zelezný has acknowledged that when he was Senator, a request to waive his parliamentary immunity was presented by the police and that he asked the Senate to waive his immunity on the hope that it would accelerate the investigation procedure.
Dr. Zelezný has acknowledged that when he was Senator, a request to waive his parliamentary immunity was presented by the police and that he asked the Senate to waive his immunity on the hope that it would accelerate the investigation procedure.
In his written declaration, Dr Zelezný points out that the police investigation on him has been purposely protracted for years and years to keep opponents away from fair political competition.
In his written declaration, Dr Zelezný points out that the police investigation on him has been purposely protracted for years and years to keep opponents away from fair political competition.
Dr Zelezný claims also that the cases against him are without ground and artificially perpetuated with a view to damaging his political career.
Dr Zelezný claims also that the cases against him are without ground and artificially perpetuated with a view to damaging his political career.
Nevertheless, there are certain aspects to the case, as pointed out by Dr Zelezný (some disproportionate reaction from the police on his arrest, the rather obscure situation of other main accused, Mr Novotný in the first case brought before the Prague Court, certain police harassment and the length of the proceedings), that have demanded a thorough exam by the committee, but, as said above, the response from the Senate and the explanations from the Minister of Justice make the rapporteur inclined to advise Parliament to waive the immunity of Dr Zelezný.
Nevertheless, there are certain aspects to the case, as pointed out by Dr Zelezný (some disproportionate reaction from the police on his arrest, the rather obscure situation of other main accused, Mr Novotný in the first case brought before the Prague Court, certain police harassment and the length of the proceedings), that have demanded a thorough exam by the committee, but, as said above, the response from the Senate and the explanations from the Minister of Justice make the rapporteur inclined to advise Parliament to waive the immunity of Dr Zelezný.
Euroopa Liidu relvaekspordi toimimisjuhendi rakendussätte 8 kohane nõukogu kuues aastaaruanne
on the Council's Sixth Annual Report according to Operative Provision 8 of the European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports
ARENGUKOMISJONI ARVAMUS .......................................................................................16
OPINION of the Committee on Development ......................................................16
- võttes arvesse nõukogu kuuendat aastaaruannet, mis võeti vastu 11. novembril 2004
- having regard to the Council’s Sixth Annual Report adopted on 11 November 2004
ELT C 316, 21.12.04, lk 1.
OJ C 316, 21.12.2004, p.
Euroopa Liidu Nõukogu 16133/1/04, 23.12.2004, lk 1. ;
Council of the European Union 16133/1/04, 23.12.2004, p.
- võttes arvesse Euroopa Liidu sõjalise otstarbega kaupade nimekirja (ELi relvaekspordi toimimisjuhendis käsitletud varustus), mis võeti nõukogus vastu 25. aprillil 2005
- having regard to the Common Military List of the European Union (equipment covered by the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports) adopted by the Council on 25 April 2005