Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-09-Speech-2-337"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040309.12.2-337"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
I want to make it absolutely clear that the Commission, along with Parliament and the Council, ought to send a signal to citizens all over an enlarged Europe that openness and transparency are what we are actively fighting for and that we want to implement them in such a way that citizens are provided with full information. The rules in question have also been agreed so that we have decision-making processes through which we can solve problems, and which allow us to deal with cases in a dignified way for both parties.
The Commission may disclose copies of the letters of formal notice and recent opinions when none of the exceptions to the regulations I mentioned apply – i.e. when the infringement procedure has been closed and there is no longer any likelihood that the investigation could be undermined. Many of the details are exchanged between the Commission and the Member State, but there is a fear that if these were in the public domain they could be used or misused in such a way that would undermine the whole procedure.
In general, I agree that we should strive for maximum transparency in these processes. It helps when Member States and the Commission are able to agree. The Commission also tries, when opening an infringement case, to disclose or give the reasons why it has opened that case against a Member State. We do not want to disclose all the details of a case, but rather to give the public an idea of what it is about."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples