This is just sophistry now. The commissioner is playing the role he's supposed to play in the EU institutions, and I have seen no indication that he's done anything illegal or held the parliament in contempt.
> I have seen no indication that he's done anything illegal or held the parliament in contempt
He's said he will ignore the decisons arrived at by the democratically elected representatives of the people. That seems a pretty clear indication to me.
No, he's said he will continue to seek the legal advice of the ECJ regardless of whether or not parliament agrees with the current solution, so that depending on the decisions by the ECJ and the decision by parliament, they can look at how to address issues to make it possible for parliament to agree to a revised proposal.
Nothing in what he said indicates he wants to try to overrule the parliament, only that the EU executive branch believes ACTA is important, and so if the current solution is not approved by parliament they want all the information they can on how to make it acceptable.
We might not like that he's likely to try to go back for a second try with what will likely be relatively unsubstantial changes, but it is not unusual for proposals to be revised and revisited.
What the parent commenter is saying is that he is technically acting within the legal bounds of his office. That is, impeachment will be impossible unless an actual violation of law is found.
> That is, impeachment will be impossible unless an actual violation of law is found.
The European parliament can't impreach the commission. What it can do is sack them (but all of them, not just one). No evidence of illegality is needed.
