Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-07-06-Speech-4-019"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000706.3.4-019"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner and Mr Söderman, the rapporteur’s and the committee’s understanding of the Ombudsman’s report for 1999 – the year characterised by crises within the EU institutions and by an immense distrust of the administration – is that the citizens will only view European integration as legitimate if they have rights that mean they can actively participate in a political dialogue with the institutions. The political dialogue is not, however, a real dialogue if the citizens do not have the right to receive information and to have access to the documents that they ask for and if the opinions they express are not paid attention to, discussed or taken seriously.
What has all this got to do with the Ombudsman’s task? The Ombudsman’s task is, of course, according to the Treaty, to investigate cases of maladministration within the Community institutions and within the public bodies. At the request of the European Parliament, the Ombudsman gave a definition of the term “maladministration” in the annual report for 1997. These cases occur when a public body fails to act in accordance with a rule or principle that is binding upon it. During the Ombudsman’s last period of office, the institutions agreed to apply this definition, and it is now, and will be in the future, the basis for the Ombudsman’s activity. In the report, the committee stresses that this jointly approved definition of “maladministration” also involves the right to inspect how the institutions have interpreted Community law.
Irrespective of the legal form the Charter of Fundamental Rights will take, it will, in any case, be an expression of the Member States’ common constitutional traditions which, in accordance with Article 6 of the Treaty, shall be respected by the Union and therefore also by the institutions and public bodies. The committee observes, therefore, that the Ombudsman ought to play an important part in implementing a future charter of citizens’ rights.
The committee has also expressed its clear support for the fact that the Charter of Fundamental Rights ought to contain rules which give citizens the right to expect good administration within the EU. “Good administration” is the opposite of “maladministration”. The right to good administration, both with respect to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour which Parliament and the Ombudsman have sought, should at least contain: the right to have one’s case heard, the right to inspect documents, the right to prompt answers from the administration and the right to receive replies supported by reasons. All these aspects have been central to the Ombudsman’s work. These rights are prerequisites for the active citizenship that is necessary if the EU is to regain the confidence of its citizens. It is these rights that make citizenship active instead of passive. Good administration can create conditions for active citizenship, whereas maladministration can undermine these conditions.
What are the most common complaints to the Ombudsman and into which categories do they fall? Incomplete or refused information, delays that could have been avoided, discrimination, lack of the right to defence. Citizens want to see good administration. They want to be active citizens. These conclusions can be drawn from the ever increasing number of complaints to the Ombudsman and from the nature of these complaints.
The Ombudsman has become renowned for his work for the wider public. This is something he should receive a lot of praise for. An investigation that he completed a few years ago resulted in most of the Community’s institutions and public bodies currently having legislation that allows the public to have access to documents. He has tirelessly continued the work for real transparency and for its no longer being possible for data secrecy and personal protection to be used to prevent the public’s scrutiny of the activities of the authorities. Step by step, the Ombudsman has developed his work, endeavoured to obtain better administration and gained the trust of the citizens. His cooperation with the national ombudsmen is also important, as will be his future cooperation with the corresponding bodies in the candidate countries.
This is substantial work that Parliament has reason to support. It ought to do this by making sufficient financial resources available to the Ombudsman so that he can carry out the necessary investigations which the mandate requires. We should in the future also make sure that we support an Ombudsman who is independent in his decision making. I would like to address a big thank you to the Ombudsman and his office, as well as to the secretariat at the Committee on Petitions which, as we know, is currently working under difficult conditions."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples