Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-17-Speech-2-228"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021217.7.2-228"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Question No 46 by Laura González Álvarez ():
In June 2002 a delegation of the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions travelled to Asturias at the invitation of the parliament of Asturias. One of the petitions handed to the committee chairman, Mr Gemelli, at a meeting with various groups of petitioners criticised the social and environmental impact of routing the ‘autovía del Cantábrico’ motorway through the west of the region. That petition was declared admissible by the Committee on Petitions.
Surprisingly, however, before the petition could be discussed under the usual procedure, an MEP, accompanied by the secretary of his party in the region and three mayors, met with Commissioner Loyola de Palacio and two Commission officials. On their return to Asturias the mayors told the media that the petition had been filed.
How can a case be closed before the committee responsible has either seen or discussed it? How can Mrs Loyola de Palacio decide to file a petition which – as indicated in a reply sent by Mrs Wallström – does not fall within her department’s remit? Does the Commission not believe that its independence and the duty of confidentiality of the officials concerned have been affected? In its view, does action of this kind not undermine the role of the Committee on Petitions and of Parliament itself and, worse still, show a lack of respect for the petitioners?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Subject: Independence exercised by the Commission"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples