Trip to Strasbourg, Part I

Dear trainee,

the Strasbourg trip will remain in our mind as one of the most important events organized by the bureau de stage. Why? Because of the reception in the Salons de l’Hôtel de ville at the end of the journey or because we fell in love during the trip? Sois patient, we’ll give you the details in a little while. Let us start from the beginning.

Day 1. Almost immediately after our arrival in Strasbourg, we had the incredible chance to meet Mr. F*** (MEP) at the European Parliament! Btw, Ricardo just sent me this:
"si tu veut ajouter qq chose: http://www.joinfjellner.nu/, on comprend rien...mais c'est marrant d'avoir un teen MEP!!!" This guy is a different type of politician: he has a message: back to basics (he said the slogan was stolen from John Major, but we have a little doubt. Yeah, now we are sure that it’s because he is using “back to basics” hair care products, made with natural extracts… oops, hors sujet, sorry ;). YES, he is participating in 3 committees: international trade, environment, budgetary control, but NO, Filipe, he doesn’t need a special education for that. His most important activity is yelling in the elevator: “I’m a deputy” and looking angry. Blah blah blah, blah blah blah, next one please!

We had a little break before the round table discussion with Mr U*** from the Ombudsman office.
When he entered in the room, our little heart stopped beating. He asked if there are some Slovaks (we looked into his grey eyes and saw a reflection of our soul… and we realized that we could be Slovak, we could be Czech, we could be everything he wants us to be…).
He started his presentation confidently, speaking clearly and slowly about the Ombudsman’s tasks. Eh oui, ces derniers temps, Mr Diamandouros is working hard to promote good administration within the European institutions and bodies. He investigates complaints concerning maladministration (please note that the latter is not legally defined).
Next, our brilliant lawyer presented the conditions for the admissibility of the complaint. He ended his presentation with a few interesting statistics related to various cases and the institutions concerned (it’s always useful to know that contrairement au Conseil, la Commission figure parmi les mauvais élèves). Anyway, it seems that in general the institutions follow the draft recommendations.
What can we say, we were impressed! But it was too late, he left… and we understood that for the first time in our live, we were in love :’(

En fin de journée nous avons assisté aux débats du Parlement européen, tristement abandonné par la majorité de ses députés. Quelques voix dans le désert essayaient néanmoins d’aborder des sujets d’une importance cruciale… Day 2.
The hearing at the European Court of Human Rights was fascinating. The applicant complained under Article 6§1 ECHR (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and under Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life). We were happy to see once again the Judge Jean-Paul Costa (Vice President of the Court) who was explaining to us a few years ago (during our studies) the virtues of the Article 6§1ECHR. The defence tried to use (in Court!!!) some psychiatric theories about the first trauma, the second trauma and the third syndrome of Vietnam! However, the legal arguments of the Czech government were pragmatic, giving clear and precise references to the facts, the relevant provisions of the internal rules and the jurisprudence of the Court. The Agent, Alexander S*** was quite convincing …but unfortunately, our heart was already taken!

After lunch, we attended a “conference” on the role of the Council of Europe in the European political architecture, presented by Mr T***. He stated that the membership in this organisation is an unwritten condition for the accession to the EU and he was right! Actually, the Copenhagen criteria are the rules that define whether a nation is eligible to join the European Union, often criticised for being too vague, incorporate a need for stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, guarantees about the rule of law and human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. Neither the Convention on human rights, nor the Council of Europe are mentioned. A ce propos, we were shocked by the questions of some of our colleagues concerning Turkey (Turkey has made noticeable progress towards meeting the Copenhagen political criteria). After all, those criteria are so general, that they can allow or deny the EU membership to similar candidate countries. Dans le même ordre d’idées, on se doit de préciser une autre affirmation: “The Union shall be open to all European States which respect its values and are committed to promoting them together”. Since there is no legal definition of what “European” means, geographical, historical and political considerations will have to be taken into account when interpreting this statement. So, question of the day: why do you think that Europe is different? (We are pretty sure that Mongolia is sharing the same values and will present it’s candidature for membership soon)
Please send your answer to candidate.forever@eu-member.never!