Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-211"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010213.9.2-211"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Thank you for your answer. Mr Kinnock refers to the letter to Mrs Gradin and Mr Asp. We have not of course read it directly, but a copy of the letter to Mr Asp – which I assume has been correctly reproduced – has now been published in the Swedish media which, after referring to the television programme, state that Mr Kinnock wrote in the following terms to Mr Asp: “As you perhaps know, this statement has, fairly or unfairly, been interpreted as criticism of the Commission as an institution. Because you were formerly employed at the Commission, your statement raises the question of what kind of obligations you have because, as an employee, you have to comply with various terms of employment and Staff Regulations”.
Clearly, this can hardly be interpreted as anything other than an insinuation that Mr Asp did something he ought not to have done and that he might perhaps even deserve a reprimand. My question, therefore, is as follows: what legal basis is there for this letter? What kind of legal regulations are there to say that former chefs de cabinet or Commissioners do not have the right to criticise the Commission as an institution, and on what legal basis are such people even to be reminded of Staff Regulations and their various terms of employment?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples