Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-26-Speech-3-125"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030326.7.3-125"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I asked for the opportunity to speak in order to draw attention to an aspect of the coming reforms of the Public Service Statute that has been neglected in the discussions to date. I am talking about the condition under which the unmarried partner of a European official may claim equal treatment. In other words, to be treated the same as if he or she were the married partner of the official.
I believe the Commissioner when he says that he has often done that, that the purpose of the whole reform operation is to change an obsolete regime to reflect modern times. I believe, however, that his proposals do not meet this criterion, because he only wants to treat so-called non-traditional forms of cohabitation as equal if the people concerned can provide formal recognition by a Member State and only in cases in which they do not have access to legal marriage.
This approach introduces discrimination by nationality, continues to give priority to marriage and does not solve the problem. Many unmarried couples will be unable to meet these conditions. The Commissioner is obviously overlooking the fact that there are not only couples who cannot marry, but also those who do not wish to. His proposal furthermore does not do justice to the special position of European officials. I am therefore pleased that in the report by Mr Medina Ortega and Mr Harbour, which we have before us, a better solution is being put forward in Amendment No 39. This is a solution which, incidentally, has been practised for many years by the European Central Bank. This rule is characterised by the beauty of its simplicity and also offers equal treatment to those who form a de facto household.
Up to now I have not heard the Commissioner say that he would not follow Parliament’s wish on this point. May I then conclude – and I remain optimistic – that he will in fact do so and that he will use all his verve and eloquence to plead for Amendment No 39 in the Council too?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples