Post by derek on Aug 7, 2013 19:43:01 GMT
Strong – Enough!
5th July 2013
Back in 2011 motorcyclist Jon Strong submitted a series of complaints to the European Ombudsman.
These complaints consisted of allegations that the European Commission failed properly to reply to his correspondence.
The on-going and at times, arrogant correspondence to the Commission, contested the quality of a survey that it had conducted (it was only available in English) before the Commission made a legislative proposal about Road Worthiness Testing) in the area of road safety. He also requested access to a number of Commission documents in support of that proposal.
When the Commission failed to reply to Mr Strong’s lengthy criticisms and failed to provide him with the requested documents, the Commission representative (Isabelle Kardacz) stated that she would stop all exchange of correspondence. Mr Strong then turned to the Ombudsman to complain.
In this particular case, the Commission had evoked the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, which allows stopping correspondence if this can reasonably be regarded as improper, for example, because it is repetitive, abusive and/or pointless.
The Commission’s Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE) decided to discontinue correspondence with the complainant (wrongly, it later transpired).
To Summarize
Apart from the Ombudsman inviting Mr Strong to take his issues to the European Parliament through petitions what really has been achieved?
Mr Strong has already Petitioned Parliament. In 2012, supported by the Motorcycle Action Group (MAG UK) contacting “every MEP”, Mr Strong petitioned the Committee on Petitions requesting a postponement of IMCO (Internal Market and Consumer Protection) and EU Parliament Plenary votes on the Regulation for Powered Two Wheeler Type Approval and Market Surveillance (Type Approval Regulation for motorcycles) until the EU Ombudsman has published his decision on the complaint covering the proposed regulation.
Mr Strong pointed out he was waiting to hear from the Ombudsman to decide on maladministration by EU institutions, whether there has been maladministration in the process by which the draft legislative act covering Type Approval and proposed by the European Commission was drafted and consequently as to the legality of that act.
Although Mr Strong pointed out the urgency of his requests, the vote in the IMCO and EU Parliament has already taken place, so in essence, nothing had been achieved!
What the Ombudsman concludes in his decision was that, “It also became apparent that what the complainant ultimately sought was a change in legislation affecting him as a motorcyclist.”
Finally, the Ombudsman noted that during the inquiry, the Commission had assured him that it was prepared to submit the complainant’s views to its expert groups working on the relevant legislative proposals. The Ombudsman therefore invited the Commission to confirm to him that it had indeed followed up those assurances and had forwarded the complainant’s views on those proposals to its expert groups.
With the actions listed above, the Ombudsman closed the case with the following conclusion:
No further inquiries are justified.
Our Conclusion
It must be remembered that Mr Strong did not confine his interpretation of these issues solely to the European Commission and the Ombudsman. As mentioned he has already approached the Petition Committee of the European Parliament and also numerous MEPs, Commissioners and rider organisations.
Last year we had short conversations with Mr Strong during the IFZ Conference – FEMA Forum in Germany and while he had no doubt in his own mind of how legislation and other issues would affect him as a motorcyclist, we did not agree with him then (and now) and certainly not in his approach which included reference to his personal life and upbringing.
Although he had been praised in the past by a UK rider’s organisation, at their annual group conference, for his continual determination and analytical skills in his complaint to the European Ombudsman, there is a borderline between sanity and rational discourse and rhetorical diatribe.
In our view, having read the river of correspondence with references to his grandmother, his riding skills, Magna Carta 1297, the American war of Independence, the Boer War, the Second World War, his motorcycle collisions and a Jewish solicitor who defended victims of Nazism (when writing to the German President of the European Parliament), we can’t help but wonder – where did he come from?
More to the point, why would the motorcycling community even consider this person as a representative of our rights?
So maybe it is a case of Strong – Enough!
View the full article and comment on Right To Ride EU - www.righttoride.eu/?p=11449
Issued by
Trevor Baird
5th July 2013
Back in 2011 motorcyclist Jon Strong submitted a series of complaints to the European Ombudsman.
These complaints consisted of allegations that the European Commission failed properly to reply to his correspondence.
The on-going and at times, arrogant correspondence to the Commission, contested the quality of a survey that it had conducted (it was only available in English) before the Commission made a legislative proposal about Road Worthiness Testing) in the area of road safety. He also requested access to a number of Commission documents in support of that proposal.
When the Commission failed to reply to Mr Strong’s lengthy criticisms and failed to provide him with the requested documents, the Commission representative (Isabelle Kardacz) stated that she would stop all exchange of correspondence. Mr Strong then turned to the Ombudsman to complain.
In this particular case, the Commission had evoked the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, which allows stopping correspondence if this can reasonably be regarded as improper, for example, because it is repetitive, abusive and/or pointless.
The Commission’s Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport (DG MOVE) decided to discontinue correspondence with the complainant (wrongly, it later transpired).
To Summarize
Apart from the Ombudsman inviting Mr Strong to take his issues to the European Parliament through petitions what really has been achieved?
Mr Strong has already Petitioned Parliament. In 2012, supported by the Motorcycle Action Group (MAG UK) contacting “every MEP”, Mr Strong petitioned the Committee on Petitions requesting a postponement of IMCO (Internal Market and Consumer Protection) and EU Parliament Plenary votes on the Regulation for Powered Two Wheeler Type Approval and Market Surveillance (Type Approval Regulation for motorcycles) until the EU Ombudsman has published his decision on the complaint covering the proposed regulation.
Mr Strong pointed out he was waiting to hear from the Ombudsman to decide on maladministration by EU institutions, whether there has been maladministration in the process by which the draft legislative act covering Type Approval and proposed by the European Commission was drafted and consequently as to the legality of that act.
Although Mr Strong pointed out the urgency of his requests, the vote in the IMCO and EU Parliament has already taken place, so in essence, nothing had been achieved!
What the Ombudsman concludes in his decision was that, “It also became apparent that what the complainant ultimately sought was a change in legislation affecting him as a motorcyclist.”
Finally, the Ombudsman noted that during the inquiry, the Commission had assured him that it was prepared to submit the complainant’s views to its expert groups working on the relevant legislative proposals. The Ombudsman therefore invited the Commission to confirm to him that it had indeed followed up those assurances and had forwarded the complainant’s views on those proposals to its expert groups.
With the actions listed above, the Ombudsman closed the case with the following conclusion:
No further inquiries are justified.
Our Conclusion
It must be remembered that Mr Strong did not confine his interpretation of these issues solely to the European Commission and the Ombudsman. As mentioned he has already approached the Petition Committee of the European Parliament and also numerous MEPs, Commissioners and rider organisations.
Last year we had short conversations with Mr Strong during the IFZ Conference – FEMA Forum in Germany and while he had no doubt in his own mind of how legislation and other issues would affect him as a motorcyclist, we did not agree with him then (and now) and certainly not in his approach which included reference to his personal life and upbringing.
Although he had been praised in the past by a UK rider’s organisation, at their annual group conference, for his continual determination and analytical skills in his complaint to the European Ombudsman, there is a borderline between sanity and rational discourse and rhetorical diatribe.
In our view, having read the river of correspondence with references to his grandmother, his riding skills, Magna Carta 1297, the American war of Independence, the Boer War, the Second World War, his motorcycle collisions and a Jewish solicitor who defended victims of Nazism (when writing to the German President of the European Parliament), we can’t help but wonder – where did he come from?
More to the point, why would the motorcycling community even consider this person as a representative of our rights?
So maybe it is a case of Strong – Enough!
View the full article and comment on Right To Ride EU - www.righttoride.eu/?p=11449
Issued by
Trevor Baird