Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-26-Speech-4-012"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020926.1.4-012"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Madam President, the annual debate on the activities of the Committee on Petitions and the European Ombudsman focuses our attention on the relationship between citizens and the institutions. This relationship is fundamental, and forms the basis for all our policies since ultimately they are addressed to the citizens. It is therefore important that once a year Parliament, the Ombudsman and the Commission take stock of how this dimension is taken into account in their regular and day-to-day activities.
Be that as it may, the Commission code represents real progress. Of all the codes adopted by the institutions, it is the one which corresponds the most closely to the Ombudsman's proposals. It entered into force in November 2000, and a first evaluation report has now been finalised. It will be circulated shortly. The Commission is well aware that, despite all its efforts, the European Ombudsman would like to go further. He has in fact referred this issue to Parliament in a special report, with the result that a year ago Parliament expressed itself in favour of a single harmonised code for all the institutions. This is still the position today of your rapporteurs, Mr Wyn and Mr Koukiadis
The Commission realises that the situation is not totally satisfactory at present since European citizens are confronted with different standards of good administration depending on which institutions they contact. However, the Commission is not in a position at present to launch a legislative initiative. The first report on the application of the Commission code covers only a few cases, as you will no doubt see, and we know nothing about how the other codes are being implemented by the other institutions. In addition, as I have just mentioned, discussions are in progress at the Convention concerning the adoption of an administrative law, and we should undoubtedly wait for its results. I notice in this connection that the proposal made by the Ombudsman to the Convention provides for the adoption of such a law within one year of the entry into force of the Treaty. It seems to me that this gives us some room for manoeuvre.
Lastly, while it is true that an interinstitutional approach aimed at the adoption of a single code and a single law is no doubt useful, the fact remains that the situation in each institution is specific, and a degree of flexibility is called for.
I will not go through all the points raised in the reports by Mr Koukiadis and Mr Wyn, but I must say that relations between the Ombudsman and the Commission, although cordial and very productive, may from time to time give rise to disagreements in the context of institutional relations. While the Commission pays tribute to the work accomplished by the Ombudsman, the fact remains that there are still differences of opinion on certain points. Firstly, there is the question of the application of the relevant provisions of Regulation 1049/2001 to infringement dossiers and how to interpret the data protection directive. However, I will not repeat here the position expressed on behalf of the Commission by Mr Bolkestein on this latter point or the opinion expressed by the Commission concerning the proposal to amend the rules governing the Ombudsman. Both Parliament and the Ombudsman are well aware of these positions.
Nevertheless, I should like to return for a moment to the report by Mr Koukiadis on the deliberations of the Committee on Petitions. The Commission shares the rapporteur's main concern of organising more efficient working and cooperation conditions between the Commission and the Committee on Petitions. Incidentally, as the President and some Members will know, I have personal experience of very well-organised cooperation with the committee in a specific case.
Returning to the text, the prospect of enlargement should prompt us to improve our procedure still further and, in this connection, I would reiterate the Commission's willingness to debate a review of the interinstitutional agreement with the Council and Parliament on the examination of petitions. The Commission also agrees with the rapporteur about cooperation with the national parliaments and with the national administrations as part of the efforts to find solutions to problems raised by petitions.
Allow me to conclude with a few points which should be made at this time of institutional deliberations. One of the objectives of the Convention is to bring the institutions closer to citizens. In this context, there can be no question of reducing the possibilities with regard to exercising the right of petition, but rather of consolidating them or providing a framework for them. In addition, it is clearly very important, as part of the clarification of the institutional system, that citizens should be aware of the various means of appeal available to them at the various levels of the institutional machinery. The Commission therefore welcomes the contributions by the Ombudsman and the Committee on Petitions, and undertakes to examine them constructively. Moreover, by adopting a constructive dialogue approach, the Commission, the Ombudsman and the European Parliament will make the best possible contribution to defending the interests of European citizens.
However, this year the debate is different for two reasons.
Firstly, work on the Convention is in full swing. It will map out the future of Europe, and both the Committee on Petitions and the Ombudsman have referred to that body the issue of citizens' rights through proposals concerning, on the one hand, the right to petition, and on the other, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, an administrative law and means of appeal.
Secondly, the Ombudsman, Mr Söderman, has told Parliament that he wishes to stand down at the end of March 2003, so this is the last time that he will present an annual report to this Assembly. Allow me to take this opportunity to thank Mr Söderman, on behalf of the Commission, for the work he has carried out since he was appointed in July 1995.
As the first EU Ombudsman, he has played a pioneering role, helping to bring about a real change of culture within the Commission, and I am sure that this also applies to the other institutions and bodies. In addition, his own-initiative enquiries have also had direct consequences, and resulted in positive administrative reforms.
I should like to mention some of them. Firstly, the Code of Good Administrative Conduct which, it should be stressed, was the result of an initiative by Parliament when adopting the Perry report on the activities of the Committee on Petitions in 1996. Then in the recruitment sphere, there have been firstly the removal, in two stages, of the age limit in competitions and, secondly, the Ombudsman's success in obtaining the right for any participant in a competition to have access to their corrected papers. Both these things required quite a change in administration and tradition in the institutions. Lastly, his efforts have prompted us to organise more structured relations between complainants and the Commission in infringement procedures.
These are the areas in which the institutional relations between the Ombudsman – often supported by Parliament, moreover – and the Commission have led to genuine progress.
I should like to return briefly to the Code of Good Administrative Conduct, because the reports by Mr Wyn and Mr Koukiadis raise this matter.
It should be pointed out that from the outset the Commission was receptive to Parliament and the Ombudsman. It has drawn up various drafts starting in 1998 and now under the present Commission it has drawn up and adopted its own Code of Conduct aimed at the citizen, binding in nature and corresponding to many of the points in the Code of Conduct drawn up by the Ombudsman himself. This important work led the Commission to amend its own Rules of Procedure in October 2000. Not all the institutions have acted in that way. Of course there remain certain differences compared with the latter code, as the Ombudsman, Mr Perry, and now Mr Koukiadis and Mr Wyn have pointed out."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples