Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-05-04-Speech-1-228"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090504.25.1-228"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, in 2005 a freelance interpreter, discovering that he was no longer hired by the European Commission when he reached the age of 65, lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman for alleged age discrimination in violation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
I must confess, Mr President, Commissioner, to a certain uneasiness, because, throughout this process we have always sought to reach an understanding but, nevertheless, there has been a certain amount of pressure for the report not to reach plenary and even now some comments suggest that Parliament’s position will be disregarded as well. This is most surprising and, in addition, does not stem from Commissioners themselves but, rather, from certain high-ranking officials – very few, but from some high-ranking officials – convinced that they are permanent members of staff in contrast to Members of Parliament and even Commissioners who are, by definition, interim staff here on a short-term basis.
Whilst reiterating, Mr President, Commissioner, fellow Members, our desire and will to cooperate and always be on good terms with the Commission, we have no choice but to reject the conduct to which I have referred. Let us hope that tomorrow’s vote reflects what happened in the Committee on Petitions: a majority or unanimous vote in support of the Ombudsman, with Parliament making clear to the Commission that things are as they should be and that everyone knows their place.
This was not a recent issue: years before, the Commission and Parliament had taken the decision not to hire freelance interpreters over the retirement age of their own staff.
The interpreters affected by this took the matter to the Court of Justice and won on first instance, but were ruled against at the appeal stage, although this was due to formal defects and not substance.
Taking into account previous cases and rulings, the Ombudsman made a thorough analysis of the complaint and concluded that, indeed, there had been evidence of discrimination and an infringement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; he therefore recommended that the Commission change the rule in line with the action already taken by Parliament following the ruling by the Court of First Instance.
The Commission ignored the Ombudsman’s recommendation, which compelled the Ombudsman to request support from Parliament, which passed the case on to the Committee on Petitions. The Committee on Petitions had three reasons for supporting the Ombudsman with the resolution that was adopted unanimously by the Committee.
Firstly, to line up with the position of Parliament itself, which had been hiring freelance interpreters over the age of 65 when it was deemed convenient or necessary.
Secondly, because of its obligation to support the Ombudsman. Parliament considers the Ombudsman to be a troublesome institution at times, but one that is always of great importance to our legal system.
Thirdly, we felt it was important to remind the European Commission that it is not above other Community institutions, especially those that are responsible for scrutinising and overseeing its work.
So here we are in plenary, presenting the resolution that was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Petitions, as I have said, and which calls on the Commission to implement the Ombudsman’s recommendation; we are also reiterating that the Ombudsman, like Parliament itself, is above the Commission’s Legal Service, which is an important department, but an administrative one and nothing more. Nothing less and nothing more than that."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples