Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-02-Speech-3-098"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-05-02"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Public access to documents2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010502.7.3-098"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-05-02-Speech-3-0992
lpv:speaker	lp:Diemut R. Theato2
lpv:spokenAs	member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (1999-10-12--2002-03-07)3 chair; CONT (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Romania Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; BUDG (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Conference of Committee Chairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Madam President-in-Office, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, at the beginning of the negotiations on the proposal for a regulation on public access to documents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the Committee on Budgets considered an opinion on this which I myself drafted. I would like to reiterate the basic principles of that opinion, which are still valid today. We highlighted three main points, the first of these being transparency and openness, which are a fundamental requirement for any system of democratic control. These principles require an administration to be legitimate, efficient, responsible and meaningful for the public. Furthermore, they provide protection against arbitrary actions and the abuse of power. In addition, they contribute to the exposure, punishment and prevention of irregularities and fraud, phenomena that the Commission in particular has been very much subject to in the past. The second main point is the statement that documents produced by the institutions should be made public as a matter of principle. Any necessary exceptions to this principle should be justified. This has now been firmly established. Furthermore, I believed at that time that it was not appropriate to draw up an extensive catalogue listing existing legal provisions, which would only lead to doubts and disputes. The third main point is the public's desire for their rights to be respected in practice by guaranteeing the existence of an accessible registry, as is being requested now, and also, by means of the Internet, to respond swiftly to requests for documents and to justify any refusal of such a request, and last but not least to use the language of the applicant. I would also like to see a coordinating body facilitating all this. We shall see how this works in practice. I am pleased to see that the basic requirements have been established, even if not in full as yet. That can be covered in the revised version. I also believe that the framework agreement should be revised to bring it in line with the requests we have made about openness and relations between the institutions."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph