Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-13-Speech-2-206"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-02-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Question Time (Commission)2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010213.9.2-206"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-02-13-Speech-2-2072
lpv:speaker	lp:Alonso José Puerta2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; AFCO (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Izquierda Unida (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-president; Parliament's Bureau (1999-07-20--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with Australia and New Zealand (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; EUL/NGL (1999-10-13--2004-07-19)3 vice-president; European Parliament (1999-07-20--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"As they deal with the same subject, Questions Nos 50, 51 and 52 will be taken together. Question No 52 by Göran Färm (): What is known as the ECHO scandal of 1997, when irregularities resulted in the disappearance of huge amounts of EU aid and documents relating to the case later disappeared from the Commission's archives, has been the focus of much attention in Sweden and Denmark. On TV programmes in both countries, former Commissioner Anita Gradin and her former chef de cabinet have voiced criticism of the Commission's handling of the affair. In response to the comments they made, Commissioner Kinnock wrote to both of them arguing that they had no right to criticise the Commission as an institution. If, contrary to expectation, there is a rule which says that they do not have a right to criticise, it would represent a dramatic step backwards for free speech in the European Union. On what legal grounds does the Commission argue that a former Member of the Commission and her former chef de cabinet do not have a right to voice such criticism of the Commission? Question No 50 by Per Gahrton (): According to reports appearing in the Swedish press on 23 January, Commissioner Kinnock wrote to ex-Commissioner Gradin and her former chef de cabinet, Christer Asp, demanding explanations concerning comments they made about shortcomings in the way the Commission operates. After the resignation of the Santer Commission and the Buitenen affair, people thought the Commission had learnt the meaning of democratic openness and had stopped using authoritarian methods to gag its employees past and present. Will the Commission therefore say whether it is true that Commissioner Kinnock wrote such letters? What steps will it take to prevent a repeat of gaffes like this? Question No 51 by Jan Andersson (): Former Commissioner Anita Gradin and the former head of her private office, Christer Asp, have been criticised in a letter from the Commission for having given public interviews to clarify how several million in aid intended for Bosnia under the ECHO programme could have disappeared. In the interview, Anita Gradin stated that she stood by the decisions taken in the Commission. Among the principal tasks of the present Commission is to shed light on the events that took place under the previous Commission and to make changes to prevent any recurrence. Public openness is a major factor in that process. In what way does the Commission consider that the letter to Anita Gradin contributes towards greater openness and greater public confidence in the Commission?"@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"President."1 "Subject: Alleged attempt by Commissioner Kinnock to gag ex-Commissioner Gradin"1 "Subject: Commission's conduct in regard to freedom of expression"1 "Subject: The Commission's actions regarding criticisms by a former Member of the Commission"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph