Powrót na stronę Europarl

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (wybrano)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
 Pełny tekst 
Przebieg prac nad dokumentem podczas sesji
Wybrany dokument :

Teksty złożone :

O-000089/2017 (B8-0613/2017)

Debaty :

PV 13/12/2017 - 23
CRE 13/12/2017 - 23

Głosowanie :

Teksty przyjęte :

Środa, 13 grudzień 2017 r. - Strasburg Wersja poprawiona

23. Uprawnienia śledcze Parlamentu Europejskiego (debata)
zapis wideo wystąpień

  Danuta Maria Hübner, on behalf of the PPE Group . – Mr President, it is true that I am a member of the European People’s Party but I speak here today as Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs under whose responsibility and competence this dossier falls.

I would like to start by saying that we have been insisting, without success, for more than three years and five Council Presidencies now, on an interinstitutional process of dialogue being opened with the Council and the Commission on the regulation of the European Parliament on the right of inquiry.

Recent events and the work of our two latest inquiry committees – which the Commissioner mentioned, Emission Measurements in the Automotive Sector (EMIS) and Money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion (PANA) – have shown that we need new and more efficient rules on the role and powers of European Parliament committees of inquiry if we want to have effective public inquiries on matters that, by their very nature, go beyond the competence of national institutions.

Parliament voted today with a sweeping majority on establishing a permanent Committee of Inquiry. Public opinion requires those inquiries. This means that it is indeed politically important, not only politically difficult. To have clear rules is also in the interest of other institutions and also people who are called to testify in general in this Parliament. It will bring transparency and legal certainty to the procedures of inquiry, and yet we have been waiting now for more than three years, not to conclude the procedure but just to sit at the table and discuss whether an agreement is at all possible.

That is why we drafted this oral question. We are not asking the Council and the Commission to agree with us. We are asking them to sit at the table and negotiate. That is how problems are solved in the European Union and we have a duty to try at least to do so. On this we count on the Bulgarian Presidency.

Ostatnia aktualizacja: 13 kwiecień 2018Informacja prawna