Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-05-Speech-4-197"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030605.5.4-197"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, respect for Community law is a fundamental part of the future of Europe.
Allow me to finish by mentioning something very promising that the Commission has done: creating Solvit. The purpose of Solvit is to settle, very quickly – and when I say very quickly I mean within ten weeks, with four additional weeks in the event of additional problems– recurrent cross-border problems concerning the internal market, and to prevent legal actions. What is different about Solvit is that it involves Member States in a partnership with the Commission for investigating the case. This is evidence of integration, which is enjoying growing success, and the Commission is to be congratulated on this progress, the ultimate aim of which is to make life simpler for citizens in terms of respect for Community law.
The European Commission, which has to ensure that Community law is applied, has to maintain special relations with citizens who are witnesses to, or the actual or alleged victims of, violations of Community law and who lodge complaints with its services.
The communication that inspired this report demonstrates the Commission’s desire for transparency and efficiency. As it committed to doing, it publishes in consolidated form its internal rules of procedure governing its relations with the complainant. It also ensures that it keeps in contact with the complainant throughout the investigation of his complaint according to a strict schedule.
It was following an own initiative report and criticisms made against the European Ombudsman when a complaint was closed, and also repeated requests from the European Parliament, that the European Commission has reconsidered its administrative methods for dealing with relations with the complainant.
It should be noted that the Commission enjoys discretionary powers with regard to assessing complaints and deciding whether or not to commence infringement proceedings and to refer a case to the Court of Justice. This is not, therefore, about reconsidering the way in which complaints are handled but about enabling citizens to be informed, in particular about the progress of the examination of their complaints. We note with satisfaction that the Commission’s proposal is entirely a step in the right direction. We consider that the administrative measures taken by the Commission as regards the consideration of complaints are particularly welcome and that they allow complainants to be regularly informed of the stage reached in the proceedings. Moreover, we regard the maximum one-year period that the Commission has undertaken to comply with in order to respond to each case as entirely reasonable, given the number of complaints lodged and their complexity.
The only point that seems to me to be missing from this communication, however, is the situation when a complaint and a petition are lodged at the same time. As you know, the Commission is not the only institution to respond to citizen’s questions regarding the proper functioning of the institutions and the correct application of Community law. The European Ombudsman and the European Parliament, through its Committee on Petitions, also receive an increasing number of complaints. A complaint lodged by a citizen may therefore also be the subject of a petition to Parliament lodged by the same citizen. This is when two complaints are lodged at the same time, each of them being treated differently according to the institution with which it was lodged, according to a different timetable, which, you will understand, is a source of confusion for both citizens and the institutions themselves.
It seems both desirable and logical for decisions made by Community institutions regarding complaints, appeals or petitions to be coordinated between the institutions concerned in order to provide an effective service for citizens.
This is why we are urging the Commission to revise the interinstitutional agreement, which dates from 1989. It should also be considered that this was when the position of Ombudsman was introduced and the right of petition was recognised in many Member States, which considerably increased the number of appeal cases.
Despite all of the Commission’s competence in processing complaints, citizens should still use the Committee on Petitions, which considers and responds to the problems raised in a more political way, but the Commission and Parliament obviously complement each other in order to ensure the effective service required. Moreover, the need for information is going to increase in the years to come, with the arrival of ten new Member States in the Community."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples