Parliamentary question - E-004688/2013Parliamentary question
E-004688/2013

Fundamental Rights Agency: misuse of competence

Question for written answer E-004688-13
to the Commission
Rule 117
Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE) , Anna Záborská (PPE) , Konrad Szymański (ECR) , Charles Tannock (ECR) , Martin Kastler (PPE) , Peter Liese (PPE) , Filip Kaczmarek (PPE) , Bastiaan Belder (EFD) , Manfred Weber (PPE)

The Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) of the European Union is holding its 6th Annual Fundamental Rights Platform meeting on April 24-26 2013. The meeting is the most important and only general meeting at which non-governmental organisations can interact directly with the FRA. This event, at which the FRA hosts several hundred organisations, is also one of the larger items of expenditure within its budget.

This question relates to a specific plenary session of this year’s FRA meeting on Thursday 25.4.2013 from 11:30-13:00, entitled ‘Fostering anti‐discrimination policies in the EU — tools and measures available to civil society.’ The plenary session deals specifically with the topic of the proposed Equal Treatment Directive concerning goods and services. Can the Commission state what legal basis the Fundamental Rights Agency has for promoting this proposed legislation at its most important general meeting of the year?

It should be a cause for great concern that an Agency of the European Union is acting as a lobbying organisation for proposed legislation when this is clearly not within its competence. Furthermore, how does the FRA reconcile holding this presentation with the EU’s clearly‐stated principles of subsidiarity and respect for national sovereignty in light of the fact that many Member States continue to oppose the proposed Directive and holding a plenary on the topic could easily be viewed as prejudicial to these Member State’s positions?

What did the FRA do to ensure fair representation among the panellists for the plenary discussion? Can the FRA justify why it is using the finite time allowed during its yearly general meeting to discuss proposed legislation rather than dealing with the more pressing human rights issues actually within its competence? Finally, will the strong countervailing human rights concerns which have held up the directive be adequately discussed during the plenary session?

OJ C 229, 17/07/2014