3 ms·
He didn't say he'd ignore court rulings. He told the trade committee (which isn't a court AFAIK) that advising against ACTA wouldn't stop the European court of
by beeneto 14y ago
He didn't say he'd ignore court rulings. He told the trade committee (which isn't a court AFAIK) that advising against ACTA wouldn't stop the European court of justice from investigating its legality.
- Nursie 14y agoHe mentioned that he would try to weasel his way around it - "If the Court questions the conformity of the agreement with the Treaties we will assess at that stage how this can be addressed."
- webreac 14y agoIn fact this guy clarified the rules he must follow.<br> Sadly, the parliament decision has no influence on his work.
- vidarh 14y agoThe alternative reading is that in the case either of the parliament or the ECJ rejects the current agreement, he will try to find a compromise that can get the approval of both. While it is possible that he wants to try to weasel a procedural end-run around rejections, what he's actually said does not provide any basis for jumping to that conclusion.