Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-11-25-Speech-4-010"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101125.4.4-010"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, in March 2007, an environmental organisation asked for correspondence between the European Commission and the automobile industry to be disclosed during the course of consultations on the preparation of a legislative proposal on carbon dioxide emissions.
Eight months later, the Commission granted access to 16 of 19 letters, refusing – without legal justification – to disclose three letters from Porsche. The environmental organisation took recourse to the European Ombudsman, who prepared a draft recommendation addressed to the Commission a month later, asking it to reply within three months, in accordance with Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
The Commission requested five extensions, only to state – in June 2009 – that it was not in a position, a year after the Ombudsman’s draft recommendation, to disclose the correspondence with this particular automobile manufacturer, due to continuing consultations with it. Up to October 2010, the Ombudsman had no information at his disposal.
This unwarranted delay resulted in a special report to the European Parliament, charging the Commission with refusing to cooperate honestly and in good faith and, at the same time, pointing out the danger in undermining the facility for the two institutions to supervise the Commission.
As a result of this special report from the Ombudsman which Parliament is being called upon to pass today, the first on the subject of maladministration, the letters from this particular automobile manufacturer were disclosed, fifteen months after the Ombudsman’s initial request. Between September 2008 and February 2010, the Commission arrived at a decision which had been suggested to it in the Ombudsman’s draft recommendation fifteen months earlier. At the same time, it was proven that that this specific automobile manufacturer had ultimately agreed to the – albeit partial – disclosure of its letters.
It is clear from the foregoing that the Commission was, of course, obliged to take account of the relative article of the European Parliament regulation requiring the institutions to refuse access to documents if their disclosure would undermine the protection of the commercial interests of private individuals or legal entities. However, given that the Ombudsman’s office checked the letters and found that they did not contain information that would damage the commercial interests of this particular automobile manufacturer, the Commission should have immediately disclosed at least some of them, in line with the Ombudsman’s suggestion. If, however, it had reservations in interpreting the draft recommendation, it was obliged, in order to justify its decisions, to submit equally strong legal assessments confirming the possibility that the automobile manufacturer in question might take recourse to the courts on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament.
I have no wish to comment here on the total silence which the automobile manufacturer in question has maintained in response to the Commission’s request. However, I do consider it unacceptable for the supreme executive body of the European Union to use the refusal, a refusal which is almost dismissive of the European institutions on the part of a private company, to decline to respond to such a request as an argument, especially as its letters contain no information which might activate the application of the relevant article of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and give cause to take the Commission to court."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples