21. Is opposed to a standard EU-wide attachment exemption level and believes that it should be up to
the debtor to invoke the respective national limit governing non-attachable amounts;
22. Believes that a debtor should be entitled to appeal and allowed to end the attachment by providing
security; considers, in particular, that, in the event of opposition to or an application for annulment of theattachment order, the respondent must not be placed in a worse position as regards the principles under-lying the procedure and the duration of the procedure;
23. Is of the opinion that trust accounts need to be specially protected against attachment; considers that
attachment of joint accounts should be possible subject to appropriate guarantees and safeguards withrespect to the rights of third parties other than the debtor;
24. Maintains, as regards the service of attachment orders, that uniform standards need to be laid down
within the EU to govern communication between courts and banks (for example by using standard forms);
25. Is of the opinion that attachment orders should be transmitted by means that guarantee service upon
the bank by the first day after transmission and processed within 24 hours of identification of the account;believes that the bank should be required formally to notify the enforcement authority and the creditor as towhether the amount liable has been secured; believes that the bank should also be required formally tonotify the debtor when the attachment order becomes effective; considers that it would be desirable for
standardised formal notices to be available in all official languages of the European Union, thereby eliminat-
ing or reducing the need for customised translations;
26. Considers that the legal act required for the above purposes might need to take the form of a
regulation;
27. Calls on the Commission, before it submits any proposal, to clear up the —in some cases thorny —
unresolved issues by conducting detailed, wide-ranging studies, and in particular to carry out a legislativeimpact assessment;
28. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.
P6_TA(2007)0487
European Ombudsman's activities in 2006
European Parliament resolution of 25 October 2007 on the annual report on the European
Ombudsman's activities in 2006 (2007/2131(INI))
The European Parliament ,
— having regard to the annual report on the European Ombudsman's activities in 2006,
— having regard to Articles 195, 230 and 232 of the EC Treaty,
— having regard to Article 43 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
— having regard to Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom of the European Parliament of 9 March 1994 on
the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties (1),
(1) OJ L 113, 4.5.1994, p. 15. Decision as amended by Decision 2002/262/EC, ECSC, Euratom (OJ L 92, 9.4.2002,
p. 13).16.10.2008 EN C 263 E/657 Official Journal of the European Union
Thursday 25 October 2007
— having regard to its resolution of 6 September 2001 amending Article 3 of the regulations and general
conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties (1),
— having regard to the framework agreement on cooperation concluded between the European Parliament
and the Ombudsman on 15 March 2006, which entered into force on 1 April 2006,
— having regard to the Commission communication of 5 October 2005 on ‘Empowerment to adopt and
transmit communications to the European Ombudsman and authorise civil servants to appear beforethe European Ombudsman ’(SEC(2005)1227),
— having regard to the letter of 11 July 2006 sent by the European Ombudsman to the President of the
European Parliament with a view to initiating the procedure for the revision of the Ombudsman'sStatute,
— having regard to Rule 195(2), second and third sentences, of its Rules of Procedure,
— having regard to the report of the Committee on Petitions (A6-0301/2007),
A. whereas the annual report on the European Ombudsman's activities in 2006 was formally submitted
to the President of Parliament on 12 March 2007 and whereas the Ombudsman, Mr NikiforosDiamandouros, presented the report to the Committee on Petitions in Brussels on 2 May 2007,
B. whereas, under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, ‘every person has the right to have his
or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions and bodies ofthe Union ’,
C. whereas, under Article 195(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 43 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights,
any citizen of the Union and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in aMember State has the right to refer to the Ombudsman of the Union cases of maladministration in theactivities of the Community institutions or bodies, with the exception of the Court of Justice and theCourt of First Instance acting in their judicial role,
D. whereas it is essential, in the context of increasing participatory democracy in Europe and of better
communicating the European Union to its citizens, that citizens receive from the European institutionsand bodies prompt and substantive responses to their enquiries, complaints and petitions, and whereasit is essential that those institutions and bodies be given the necessary budgetary and human resourcesto ensure that citizens receive such prompt and substantive responses,
E. whereas, although one parliamentary term has come to an end since the adoption of the resolution of
6 September 2001 in which Parliament approved the European Ombudsman's Code of Good Admin-istrative Practice, and the next parliamentary term has run half its course, the other main Union institu-tions have not yet complied with Parliament's urgent request to bring their practice into line with theprovisions of that code,
F. whereas in 2006, although the number of complaints stabilised at the high level reached in 2004, over
three-quarters of them still fell outside the Ombudsman's remit, mainly because they did not concern aCommunity institution or body,
G. whereas, in 95 cases (or 26 % of the cases examined) the Ombudsman's enquiries revealed no
maladministration,
(1) OJ C 72 E, 21.3.2002, p. 336.C 263 E/658 EN 16.10.2008 Official Journal of the European Union
Thursday 25 October 2007
H. whereas the activities of the Ombudsman and the Committee on Petitions must remain separate and as
a general rule, to avoid conflicts as regards their respective prerogatives, should include reciprocal defi-nitive referral of their respective files,
I. whereas the year 2006 saw a significant decline in the number of cases of maladministration in which
an amicable settlement was reached, accompanied by an equally striking rise in the number of enquiriesclosed with a critical remark, and a lower rate of acceptance of the Ombudsman's draft recommenda-tions by the institutions,
J. whereas neither the critical remarks contained in decisions closing irremediable cases of maladministra-
tion, nor recommendations or special reports by the Ombudsman have binding effect, as his powers donot extend to directly remedying instances of maladministration, but are intended to encourage self-regulation on the part of the European Union's institutions and bodies,
K. whereas submitting a special report to the European Parliament remains the Ombudsman's ultimate
means of taking action when an institution refuses to comply with a recommendation by theOmbudsman,
L. whereas since the entry into force of the Treaty of Nice Parliament has enjoyed the same right as the
Member States, the Council and the Commission to bring an action before the Court of Justice of theEuropean Communities on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential proceduralrequirement, infringement of the EC Treaty or of any rule of law relating to its application, or misuseof powers,
M. whereas in 2006 the Ombudsman, by submitting two special reports (
1) to Parliament after the rejection
of the relevant draft recommendation by the Council and the Commission, made judicious use of hispowers,
N. whereas the Ombudsman's new approach to the Commission, which consists of promoting a culture of
service as an integral component of good administrative practice and a key means of remedying flawedactions or conduct, must be implemented from the bottom up on a consensual basis,
O. whereas the critical comments voiced by the European Ombudsman in respect of 41 cases of malad-
ministration contained in the 2006 report (critical observations, draft recommendations and specialreports) may serve as a basis for avoiding a repetition of errors and malfunctions in future by the takingand implementation of appropriate measures by the institutional and other bodies of the EU,
P. whereas the voluntary cooperation established by the Ombudsman in the European Network of
Ombudsmen has functioned for over ten years as a flexible system for exchanging information andbest practice and as a means of directing complainants to the Ombudsmen or other similar bodiesmost able to assist them,
Q. whereas the role of Ombudsman charged with protecting European citizens has evolved in the
decade or more since the office was created, thanks to the Ombudsman's independence and Parlia-ment's democratic scrutiny of the transparency of his activities,
R. whereas the Ombudsman has declared that he is willing to use his powers of own-initiative inquiries
when third-country citizens resident outside the EU address a complaint to the Ombudsman which in
other respects falls within his mandate,
(1) Special Report from the European Ombudsman to the European Parliament following the draft recommendation to
the Council of the European Union in complaint 1487/2005/GG and Special Report from the European Ombuds-
man to the European Parliament following the draft recommendation to the European Commission in complaint
289/2005/(WP)GG.16.10.2008 EN C 263 E/659 Official Journal of the European Union
Thursday 25 October 2007
S. whereas on 30 November 2006 the Ombudsman and the Data Protection Supervisor signed a Memor-
andum of Understanding concerning cooperation and the modalities of the exercise of their respectivepowers,
T. whereas one of the fundamental principles of European integration is the democratic equality of all
European citizens, without any discrimination on the grounds of nationality or language, and whereasthere are still numerous complaints from citizens, associations or firms about their failure to receive theinformation they requested in their own language in connection with Community tender or competi-tion procedures,
U. whereas the Ombudsman reiterated, in July 2006, his call for the Statute of the Ombudsman to
be amended and whereas one of his requests, for the amendment of Article 3 of the Statute, hasalready been approved by the European Parliament on the basis of its abovementioned resolution of6 September 2001,
1. Approves the annual report for 2006 submitted by the European Ombudsman, and approves the form
in which it is presented, combining a summary of the year's activities and a thematic analysis of theOmbudsman's decisions and the problems raised at various stages of the procedure; calls on the Ombuds-man, however, to introduce technical changes to make it easier to read the various chapters, such as tablesfor the statistics and summaries for the analytical section;
2. Calls for all European institutions and bodies to be given the necessary budgetary and human
resources to ensure that citizens receive prompt and substantive responses to their enquiries, complaintsand petitions;
3. Considers that the Ombudsman has continued to exercise his powers in a balanced and energetic way
both with regard to examining and handling complaints, and conducting and concluding enquiries, and withregard to maintaining constructive relations with the European Union's institutions and bodies and encoura-ging citizens to avail themselves of their rights in relation to those institutions and bodies;
4. Encourages the European Ombudsman to pursue his efforts and to promote his activities effectively
and flexibly so that, in the eyes of citizens, he represents the custodian of sound administration in theCommunity institutions;
5. Stresses that a key purpose of any intervention by the Ombudsman is to seek an amicable settlement
between the complainant and the institution and to prevent a dispute before the courts;
6. Agrees that the term ‘maladministration in the activities of the Community institutions or bodies ’
should be broadly interpreted so as to include not only unlawful administrative acts or infringements ofbinding legal rules or principles but also, for example, cases where the administrative authorities have beenslothful, negligent or lacking in transparency or have infringed other principles of good administration;
7. Encourages the Ombudsman to continue to promote a genuine culture of service as an integral com-
ponent of good administrative practice in order to ensure that the European Union's public administrationis geared towards openness and dialogue with members of the public using their services, recognising andapologising for mistakes and seeking satisfactory solutions for complainants;
8. Considers that it is not enough that some of the other institutions and Community bodies, primarily
the Commission and the Council, have adopted separate codes of good administrative conduct (in the caseof the Commission, the code of 13 September 2000 covering its staff's relations with the public, and in thecase of the Council, the code of 25 June 2001 on its staff's professional relations with the public);C 263 E/660 EN 16.10.2008 Official Journal of the European Union
Thursday 25 October 2007
9. Notes that the ‘European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour ’proposed by the European
Ombudsman, and approved by the European Parliament on 6 September 2001, covers the staff of all Com-munity institutions and bodies and, unlike the other codes, has been regularly updated and published on theOmbudsman's website;
10. Stresses that the code's erga omnes effectiveness was explained by the Ombudsman in his letter of
11 March 2002 to the President of Parliament, which is published on the Ombudsman's website; considers,therefore, that no other code with more limited application may replace, or derogate from, the ‘European ’
code of conduct;
11. Urges all the institutions to cooperate constructively with the Ombudsman at all stages of the
procedure, to abide by amicable settlements, to follow up his critical remarks and to apply his draft
recommendations;
12. Encourages the Ombudsman to draw up a list every year of best administrative practices and a list of
practices which are not consonant with his decisions, and to present a study of the outcome of his criticalcomments;
13. Urges all those who are the subject of critical remarks to respect and take account of those remarks
in their future actions, so as to avoid any instances of inconsistency between official pronouncements andadministrative actions or failures to act;
14. Reminds all Community institutions and bodies of their obligations under Regulation (EC)
No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public accessto European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (
1), which must be effectively applied, not least
to ensure the credibility of the proposed revision thereof which is currently under consideration, and theirobligations under Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of
such data (
2);
15. Calls on the Commission once again to make proper use of its discretionary powers to initiate
infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty or to propose penalties under Article 228 ofthe EC Treaty, while taking scrupulous care to avoid delays or unjustifiable failure to take prompt action,which are incompatible with the Commission's powers to oversee the application of Community law;
16. Considers that, if an institution refuses to follow a recommendation in a special report by the
Ombudsman even though Parliament has approved that recommendation, Parliament could legitimatelyuse its powers to bring an action before the Court of Justice in respect of the act or omission which wasthe subject of the Ombudsman's recommendation;
17. Urges all Community institutions and bodies, and the Member States' permanent representations, to
cooperate in the interests of transparency and compliance with the rules of good administration embodiedin the report, without shifting their responsibilities to powerful central bodies such as the Presidency of theCouncil or the Board of Governors of the European Schools, over which it would be difficult for theOmbudsman to exert control;
18. Calls on the European Personnel Selection Office to ensure that it complies effectively and fully with
the rules and established practice as regards the openness and transparency of competition procedures,particularly as regards candidates' access to information relating to them about the marking of papers, toput an end to linguistic discrimination and to refrain from evading its own responsibilities by reference todecisions made by selection boards;
(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.
(2) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31. Directive as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 (OJ L 284, 31.10.2003, p. 1).16.10.2008 EN C 263 E/661 Official Journal of the European Union
Thursday 25 October 2007
19. Warmly welcomes the declaration of the European Ombudsman of his intention to deal with the
lending activities of the European Investment Bank (EIB) outside the EU using his powers of own inquiry,and notes that the Ombudsman will need to evaluate and ensure the internal capacity to deal withcomplaints in that regard;
20. Invites the Ombudsman to consider concluding a Memorandum of Understanding with the EIB on
the modalities of cooperation between the institutions as regards the exercise of the Ombudsman's powersto investigate complaints concerning instances of maladministration in the activities of the EIB, and takesthe view that the EIB would be best placed to actively inform citizens affected by projects financed by theBank of the possibility of complaining to the Ombudsman, including when these are third-country nationalsresident outside the EU;
21. Welcomes the fact that the Ombudsman can conduct inquiries into the behaviour of bodies
operating under the EU's third pillar;
22. Notes that the Ombudsman has presented the abovementioned two special reports, one of which has
already achieved its intended purpose and the other of which will be examined by Parliament; supports theconclusions addressed by the Ombudsman to the Council concerning the need to apply consistent rules onthe language regimes used by the Council Presidencies and on the need to clarify the status of thePresidency as part of the Council as an institution;
23. Would welcome a tightening-up of internal parliamentary procedures in order to guarantee, in
future, swifter processing of the Ombudsman's annual report by Parliament's Committee on Petitions;
24. Urges the Ombudsman to submit to Parliament any requests he deems appropriate to improve the
exchange of information between their respective departments and strengthen cooperation, within the
framework laid down by Article 1 of the Framework Agreement on cooperation of 15 March 2006, withparticular reference to communications, information technology and translation;
25. Is pleased that constructive relations have been maintained with Parliament's Committee on Petitions,
both with regard to the Ombudsman's participation in meetings of the Committee and with regard toreciprocal respect of competences and prerogatives; invites the Ombudsman, therefore, to forward to theCommittee on Petitions his position in relation to the most important inquiries initiated by him in goodtime so as to achieve useful synergies;
26. Confirms its favourable opinion, as expressed in 2001, of the Ombudsman's request for the Statute
of the Ombudsman to be amended with regard to access to documents and the hearing of witnesses,endorsing the principle that the changes subsequently requested will serve to clarify the Ombudsman'spowers in view of the increasing demands placed upon him in the exercise of his office and the fact that,in practice, the main European institutions have already accepted the majority of them;
27. Stresses that these changes should not affect the basis and nature of the Ombudsman's role as
guardian of citizens' interests in relation to the European Union's public administration;
28. Recognises the useful contribution of the European Network of Ombudsmen, in line with the
subsidiarity principle, in securing extra-judicial remedies;
29. Encourages mutual consultation between the Ombudsman and the Committee on Petitions, in con-
nection with the European Network of Ombudsmen, to resolve issues which have already been dealt with asthe subject of petitions;C 263 E/662 EN 16.10.2008 Official Journal of the European Union
Thursday 25 October 2007
30. Welcomes the increasing participation of the media in publicising the work of the Ombudsman and
applauds the communications strategy adopted by the Ombudsman using various means of informingcitizens and raising public awareness which, by helping to establish a variety of forms of dialogue aimedat bringing citizens closer to European Union institutions and bodies, should, in the longer term, lead togreater awareness of citizens' rights and Community competences, as well as a greater understanding of theEuropean Ombudsman's sphere of competence;
31. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the European
Ombudsman, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and their ombudsmen or similarcompetent bodies.
P6_TA(2007)0488
Iran
European Parliament resolution of 25 October 2007 on Iran
The European Parliament ,
— having regard to its previous resolutions on Iran, notably those concerning human rights,
— having regard to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights andthe Convention on the Rights of the Child, to all of which Iran is a party,
— having regard to the EU-Iran Human Rights Dialogue,
— having regard to the statement by its President on the stoning to death of a man in Iran and the
EU Presidency Statement and the statement by Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner on the stoning todeath of Mr Jafar Kiani,
— having regard to the Declarations by the Presidency on behalf of the EU of 25 May 2007 and 3 August
2007 concerning the death sentence imposed on Sian Paymard, the death sentences imposed on Adnan
Hassanpour and Abdolvahed ‘Hiva’Botimar, the imminent execution of Mr Behnam Zare and the death
sentence imposed on Mr Ali Mahin Torabi,
— having regard to Rule 115(5) of its Rules of Procedure,
A. whereas the situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding the exercise of civil rights and political
freedoms has deteriorated in the last two years, notably since the presidential elections of June 2005,despite the fact that Iran has undertaken to promote and protect human rights and fundamental free-doms under the various international instruments in this field,
B. whereas the number of executions in Iran, including those of minors and homosexuals, often carried
out in public by hanging or stoning, has dramatically increased, bringing the number of executions
recorded since the start of 2007 to at least 244 (
1), a number which exceeds the 177 executions
recorded in 2006,
C. whereas the UN General Assembly, during its 62nd session in 2007, will vote on a resolution calling
for a global moratorium on executions, to be introduced as a step towards the abolition of the deathpenalty,
(1) Source: Amnesty International as at 18 October 2007.16.10.2008 EN C 263 E/663 Official Journal of the European Union
Thursday 25 October 2007