Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-09-06-Speech-4-023"

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.20010906.2.4-023"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-09-06-Speech-4-0242
lpv:speaker	lp:Ole Krarup2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; PETI (1999-10-08--2001-09-09)3 substitute; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Malta Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; EDD (1999-07-20--2001-12-10)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Slovenia Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Folkebevægelsen mod EU (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with South-east Europe (1999-09-28--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"The People’s Movement against the EU has, from the very beginning, worked to promote effective supervision of the EU’s institutions by the Ombudsman. We have never had any illusions that this Nordic guarantee of legal certainty, which is of course what the Ombudsman would revolutionise the EU bureaucracies, but if only the Ombudsman could clear just a few negotiable paths in the EU jungle, we should view this as progress. The Ombudsman does not have an easy time of it. It requires a great deal of patience to put up with the EU systems’ inertia. The Ombudsman’s very moderate proposals for a Code of Good Administrative Behaviour for the individual institutions has of course been met with that mixture of verbal good will and practical passivity which, in practice, can block any progress, and the current restrictions upon the Ombudsman’s ability to obtain any of the relevant information on the matters with which he is dealing – we are concerned here with Article 3 of the statute – is downright scandalous. The Ombudsman is patient, however. The institutions shelve recommendations and enquiries, but that does not cause the Ombudsman to give up. The mill turns slowly, but I believe it turns all the same. A regulation concerning good administrative behaviour – and which is not ineffectual nonsense from the Commission, but the Ombudsman’s own proposal – is something that we shall be able to support. Such a regulation will not revolutionise the various forms of administration. For that, fundamental changes to the administrative culture are required, and these will not come overnight. However, the rules can help develop legal certainty and transparency. Accordingly, we are able to support the proposal to amend Article 3 which, in its present state, really means that the institutions can refuse to provide the Ombudsman with the information needed for him to be able to exercise any supervision at all. I do not consider the proposal to be far-reaching enough, but limited progress is better than nothing. I wish Mr Söderman every success."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph