Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-27-Speech-4-022"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051027.3.4-022"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Madam Vice-President, Mr Diamandouros, Mr Mavrommatis, let me start by saying how very grateful I am for the report that the Committee on Petitions and its rapporteur Mr Mavrommatis have produced; what makes it so very successful is that it revisits the most important problems that the Ombudsman addresses in his report and seeks to find a solution to them.
Over the past year, the Petitions Committee and the Ombudsman worked very well together; I believe that the way in which they managed this should be a model not only for the cooperation between the Ombudsman and the Commission but also – and this is a point to which I shall return later – for the cooperation between the Ombudsman and the Council. While this working relationship was, in the overwhelming majority of cases in 2004, marked by a great willingness to cooperate, it has to be said that there were a number of cases in which things could have turned out much better.
The functions of an ombudsman – a position that the state from which I come has abolished – are of fundamental importance to the European Union, as he or she communicates directly with the European Union’s citizens and thereby brings them closer to its institutions. Despite all the difficulties to which Mr Seeber referred, this has already made it possible for much to be achieved, but we should nevertheless keep trying to persuade the public of the advantages that the Ombudsman can offer in bringing to light those abuses in European administration that are rather more serious than the case just described by Mr Martinez, and in following these problems up.
Through his work, the Ombudsman ensures adherence to the highest administrative standards within the European Union, its institutions and bodies. Even in the 113 – out of a total of 251 – cases in which it was not possible to establish maladministration, the Ombudsman does do helpful work, since the institution concerned – the Commission, for example – can indicate ways in which quality might be improved in future. In individual cases, the Ombudsman can spare the institution unjustified criticism, being, as a sort of outsider, able to lay claim to absolute objectivity.
As Mr Mavrommatis pointed out, the figures have, over the past few years, been on a constant upward curve. I am sure that reflects the confidence that is placed in you. We should, however, strive for a closer link between representing the interests of those members of the public who turn to their MEPs, and the work of your own institution, enabling us to make a better and more efficient job of handling their concerns.
There is one thing left for which I would like to offer you the warmest thanks, and that is for your positive response to the question from the German
of which I am still a member – that was brought in by Mr Brok. I will take this opportunity to point out that the Council, which is the object of my criticism in this regard, is again, today, distinguishing itself by its lamentable absence. By holding its meetings behind closed doors, the Council does nothing to achieve the goal of the European Constitution that it played a part in adopting, which has to do with the most open possible approach to defending the interests of the public and speaking up for Europe’s citizens and inhabitants. It is indeed a positive sign that one European institution should be able to take a critical view of the actions of another and be guided in so doing by nothing other than the goals of the European Constitution. For that, Mr Diamandouros, I should like to thank you most warmly."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Junge Union"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples