Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-06-Speech-4-020"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-09-06"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:European Ombudsman/Code of administrative conduct2
dcterms:Language	"da"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010906.2.4-020"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-09-06-Speech-4-0212
lpv:speaker	lp:Jens-Peter Bonde2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the European Economic Area Joint Parliamentary Committee (EEA) (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with Switzerland, Iceland and Norway (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 member; AFCO (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 unknown; JuniBevægelsen (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 chair; EDD (2001-01-30--2004-07-19)3 member; Conference of Presidents (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Mr Söderman, it is more than ten years since we proposed introducing a European Ombudsman. We fought for a long time to obtain a proper statute so that the Ombudsman might have the opportunity to inspect everything. That battle was lost but must now be joined again. The statute should be revised so that the Ombudsman is entitled to see each and every document before he has to pronounce upon a matter. The Ombudsman must, of course, respect privacy and reasonable demands for confidentiality, but he must have the opportunity to see everything. If the Commission’s officials themselves can decide what they want to have inspected, then it is not of course the role of an Ombudsman we are talking about here, but a public relations function. The European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control has the same problem. The Commission itself decides what it wishes to have inspected. Even the Court of Auditors does not have the opportunity fully to inspect the Commission. The President explained in the Committee that he too is not allowed to see every document. This is where Mr Prodi ought to begin, instead of issuing further empty promises about more transparency and a closer relationship with the people. The Ombudsman and the Court of Justice have done some good work in the interests of greater transparency. Mr Söderman deserves a lot of praise, but the new regulation on transparency will not constitute great progress towards transparency. Instead, it is in danger of being an actual setback. There is therefore a need now for active efforts on the parts of the Ombudsman, the Court of Auditors and the Committee on Budgetary Control. A number of active members of the Committee on Budgetary Control have brought legal proceedings against the Commission, and these are something which the whole Parliament should support. The Court of Auditors ought not to accept a single refusal to let it see a document. If the event of such a refusal, Parliament should make it known that it is not giving discharge. And why – I would ask the Ombudsman – not appeal to the people and go before the Court of Justice in the event of what you consider to be an unjustified refusal to grant access to documents?"@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph