Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-04-21-Speech-1-219"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080421.20.1-219"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, it is now 14 years since this Parliament first adopted the European Ombudsman Statute. Much has happened since then. It is therefore normal and appropriate that the Ombudsman has taken the initiative to modify his statute, and the Commission welcomes that.
The treatment of classified information has to be carefully considered. The same goes for privacy of individuals, protection of proceedings and business secrecy. That is why the Commission welcomes Parliament’s amendment that, where these kinds of documents are concerned, the Ombudsman should use rules which are strictly equivalent to those in force in the institution concerned.
With regard to sensitive information, such as data protection and business secrets, the Commission fully shares Parliament’s views. This also goes for documents relating to proceedings in litigation.
This means that the Ombudsman should apply the relevant Community law when dealing with requests from third parties for access to documents obtained by the Ombudsman in the course of his inquiries.
As you know, the relevant Community law – Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 – is currently being updated and the Commission will take a decision in just a few weeks time.
For these reasons, the Commission agrees with the aim of the amendments on access to documents, but we think maybe a more precise wording would improve the text even more, and we will come back to that when we present our formal opinion.
The third point, on OLAF: when it comes to the transmission of information on possible criminal activities, the Commission entirely agrees with Parliament that the Ombudsman should be able to notify the European Anti-Fraud Office of any information on matters within its remit and it is not entirely clear that the proposed notion of ‘competent institutional body’ would cover OLAF. A slight rewording could improve the text even more.
Finally, on cooperation in the field of human rights, the current statute has proved to be a good basis for the European Ombudsman to cooperate with national ombudsmen and similar bodies in the Member States.
The Commission fully encourages this practice. It brings the European institutions closer to its citizens. With a tabled amendment, Parliament would like to widen the scope of cooperation to other institutions for the promotion and protection of human and fundamental rights.
According to Articles 302 and 303 of the Treaty, it is the Commission, as representative of the Community, which establishes all appropriate forms of cooperation with international organisations in general and with the Council of Europe in particular. This is why the Commission considers that this proposal goes beyond the mandate given to the Ombudsman by the Treaty.
This being said, the Commission would be open to an alternative wording, and I hope we will be able to strike the right balance between the Ombudsman’s important working contacts and the Treaties that does not impinge on the Commission’s institutional prerogatives.
The important thing is this. The citizens must have confidence in the Ombudsman’s capacity to conduct thorough and impartial inquiries in alleged cases of maladministration. So the Ombudsman needs clear, concise and efficient rules for his important work.
So these are the Commission’s reflections on the issues raised by Parliament’s amendments, and after the vote tomorrow we will prepare our opinion and start discussions with the Council. This should be done quickly, since we want to facilitate an agreement on the file under the Slovenian presidency.
Right from the beginning, the Commission has followed this initiative very closely, and we have had fruitful discussions with the Ombudsman and Parliament’s rapporteur, Ms Jäätteenmäki. Our respective services have also had a lot of contact and cooperation.
The Commission welcomes the general line of this report, and I want to thank the chairman, Mr Leinen, and all committee members – in particular Ms Jäätteenmäki – for their work.
From the Commission’s side, we will deliver our formal opinion very shortly after Parliament requires us to do so. Today I would like to briefly summarise our main reflections. They have to do with four specific issues.
First, the hearing of witnesses; secondly, access to files; thirdly, OLAF, and fourth, cooperation in the field of human rights. I will say very shortly a few words about each of these points.
First, about the hearing of witnesses. The Commission agrees with Parliament’s amendment on the hearing of witnesses, and the purpose of this provision was to recall that officials give testimony not on a personal basis, but in their official capacity.
We are conscious that the current wording could give the impression that officials might act under instructions and not give authentic and complete evidence. This has never happened, but I agree that it is important to modify the wording to avoid misunderstandings.
Secondly, on access to files, the Commission is in favour of allowing the Ombudsman to consult documents that he needs in the course of his enquiries. The Ombudsman has proposed to lift the secrecy exception for access to a file. The Commission has never used this exception, but it is important that we are very clear."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"vice-president of the Commission"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples