Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-10-23-Speech-4-016"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081023.4.4-016"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I should like to thank the rapporteur for her splendid report. It is a fine piece of work, and we were particularly delighted with the considerable willingness there was to cooperate. I also wish to thank the Ombudsman for his brilliant annual report. The institution of the Ombudsman is, of course, incredibly important for the EU. Its work shows that the EU is closer to Europeans than it is reputed to be, listening as it does to criticism. Happily, it is on the right lines. Far more complaints than last year were resolved to the complainants’ satisfaction through the EU institution itself making proper allowance for them. It shows that the EU system is coming to understand the need to serve people as best as possible. Unfortunately, there are institutions that do not comply with the recommendations. In such circumstances, all that the Ombudsman can do is place the matter before Parliament - an option he can hardly be accused of misusing, since only one case was presented last year to the Committee on Petitions.
When a case comes before us in Parliament, we are clearly obliged to say that we are willing, at least in principle, to go to the European Court of Justice if the institution concerned does not comply with the Ombudsman’s decision. In that way, we can give the Ombudsman the necessary clout and authority in the system. On behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, I have tabled a couple of amendments, the sole purpose of which is to clarify the concept of maladministration. It should be possible to identify those cases in which the Ombudsman can observe that an institution or other EU body has not complied with the rules and principles applicable to it. However, there is no maladministration in cases in which the Ombudsman merely notes that there is room for improvement in the way in which the institution handles matters. It is that distinction that my amendments are aimed at clarifying.
Finally, I have a similar question to that raised by Mrs Harkin, concerning when cases are rejected. We should like to know why they are rejected. The reason should ideally be given in the answers to the complaints, and I want to ask if that is in fact the case, as otherwise matters would be very frustrating, as has already been pointed out."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples