Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-25-Speech-4-010"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030925.2.4-010"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Diamandouros, Mr Söderman, ladies and gentlemen, this debate is taking place at a key moment, since it relates to a report written and presented by the former Ombudsman, from whom Mr Diamandouros took over in April 2003, on his activities.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would once again like to thank the rapporteur, Lord Stockton, and give him every encouragement. I can also guarantee that we in the Commission will support the new Ombudsman, Mr Diamandouros, as we supported his predecessor. I cannot, however, conclude my speech without giving credit where credit is due. Mr Diamandouros said a moment ago that the main purpose of the institution of European Ombudsman is to help strengthen the democratic life of the Union by promoting the rule of law, good administration and respect for human rights.
With this in mind, we should all thank Mr Söderman for his actions and work over all these years, because, at the head of the institution of Ombudsman, he has worked to achieve that improvement, that strengthening of the rule of law, good administration and respect for human rights throughout the European Union and also in the new candidate countries, which will also be Members of our Union before long.
At the beginning of April, the Commission had the opportunity to meet with the new Ombudsman and congratulate him on his election. We also wished him all possible cooperation and collaboration, and every success in his work, not least because his predecessor was a very hard act to follow. When the previous act is that hard to follow, one has to pull out all the stops; I am sure, though, that Mr Diamandouros’s performance will be a triumph.
During the last debate of this kind, on the activities of the European Ombudsman in 2001, the Commission also had reason to congratulate Mr Söderman. On that occasion, it was for his pioneering role in setting up the European mediation system. Furthermore, I have no doubt that we will forge ahead alongside Mr Diamandouros with the same skill, initiative and impetus.
Like your rapporteur, the Commission can only welcome the Ombudsman’s establishment of the network of national and regional Ombudsmen, the notable improvements he has made to the speed at which complaints are processed, his contribution to the Convention and his active preparations for enlargement.
Regarding the management of complaints procedures, the Commission applauds Parliament’s decision which led to European authorities adopting appropriate measures for finding a solution as soon as the problem in question had come to light, in many cases, while a mutually acceptable solution was found in many others.
We are here to serve the interests of citizens. For that reason, the Commission has always made every effort to cooperate with the Ombudsman on the day-to-day handling of individual complaints. It is true, however, that there are differences of opinion at times. That is understandable, though, and there is always frank and constructive discussion.
The rapporteur, the Earl of Stockton, whom I would like to thank for his very positive work, referred explicitly to the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour. The Commission is working on this area, but we must time things carefully. The Commission’s code came into force in November 2001. Essentially, it corresponds overall to what we discussed and talked about at the time with Mr Söderman, and to what Parliament adopted. The first follow-through dossier has been produced, but not enough time has yet passed to give us a full and complete picture of how the current regulation is working, or, therefore, of how it might be improved.
There is a second question, moreover. The second follow-through dossier is being prepared. Although this report will cover all the institutions and should allow us to determine a common direction for all of them, we must remember that we do not yet know the results of the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC). If the IGC adopts the Convention’s text on this issue, we might then have a legal basis for launching an initiative promoting a common code for all the institutions, involving a codecision procedure with Parliament’s full participation. I would remind you, however, that matters as they stand are governed by Article 308 of the Treaty. Nothing more than a simple opinion – and a unanimous one at that – would thus be required of the European Parliament at the moment. With this in mind, it is important to await the final results of the IGC before taking definitive steps in this regard.
On the question of access to documents relating to the infringement procedure, we should not lose sight of the fact that the infringement procedure is an essential part of the Commission’s toolkit for ensuring that Community law is respected. The Commission must certainly be able to carry out its investigations and communicate with the Member States with complete autonomy. If it is to exert that power, it must be allowed all the room for manœuvre it needs. The issue is thus one of balancing the need for transparency with the confidentiality required in dialogues between the Commission and the Member States. Furthermore, the case-law of the Court of Justice has established a legal framework for this issue. That framework cannot be ignored. For closed infringement procedures, however, the Commission has revised its practice. The documents may thus be accessed, in principle, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples