how to get rid of moles
European Ombudsman; complaint on EESC procedures on recognition of EHS
Earlier we reported on this site about discussions in the ‘European Economic and Social Committee’ (EESC) of the ‘European Union’ on ‘Electromagnetic hypersensitivity’ (EHS):
These discussions, which started medio 2014, first led to an ‘opinion’ report:
in which both the existence of EHS and its relation to the exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) are fully recognized.
However, just prior to the final meeting and discussions about acceptance of this report by the EESC on January 21/22, 2015, Sir Richard Adams, a member with undeclared links to industry, presented a ‘counter-opinion’ report:
in which there is concern about and recognition of the prevalence of EHS, but a denial of the link to EMF. This 'counter-opinion' got support by other members of the EESC with links to industry.
In a vote on this issue there were 136 votes in favor of the 'counter-opinion' report, 110 against and 19 abstentions. There was thereafter no vote on the 'opinion' report.
Because of this last moment surprise action by Sir Adams and because of his undeclared interests an assesment of the procedures was made and complaints were forwarded to the European Ombudsman.
For the assesment, undersigned by many European organisations, see:
The European Ombudsman has now answered with a very extended:
'Recommendation of the European Ombudsman concerning the alleged failure by the European Economic and Social Committee to ensure that a member declared all relevant interests':
The main points of interest to us are that:
- The European Ombudsman has acknowledged the mismanagement of the EESC, as it permitted, on one hand the conflict of interest of one of its members (Sir Richard Adams) and secondly, a vote on a counter-opinion presented with only a day in advance.
- The Ombudsman does not recognize the nullity of counter-opinion. Such a nullity is not within the Ombudsman competence per se.
As a follow up of the response of the European Ombudsman an open letter, undersigned by 44 European organisations, has been send on October 24 to the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), see:
The purpose of this letter is:
''To repair the damages caused by the conflicts of interest and procedural irregularities in its midst arising from the adoption of the 'counteropinion' on electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) on 22 January 2015''
At the end of this letter the undersigned organisations request the following:
''- The initiation of the relevant procedures to draw up a new opinion on electromagnetic hypersensitivity, naturally, with collaboration and participation of independent doctors, scientists and European civil society organisations, including European associations defending EHS people's rights so that opinions from people suffering with electrosensitivity can be heard.
The defence of the rights of those suffering with EHS can help the millions of citizens at risk from EMF exposure today in the hope of offering protection for the lives of future generations.
Urgent guidance is needed considering the escalating use of wireless devices and proliferation of layer upon layer of radiofrequencies. With this in mind, we respectfully request that a new opinion is initiated and acted upon with urgency.
- The resignation of Mr Richard Adams (9) as external delegate (Category III - ''Various Interests'') of the Consultative Commission on Industrial Change (CCMI) of the EESC, given his totally ''inappropriate'' attitude and lack of transparency within the EESC and the existence of a ''conflict of interest'' according to the European Ombudsman opinion.''
Related to this are the new (from May 2016) Criteria and Procedures ensuring independence of the Committees, Panels and Working Groups in the EU: ec.europa.eu/health/dialogue_collaboration/system/practices/proc_criteria_en.htm .
In the meantime, the EESC has accepted some the the Ombudsman recommendations, see:
but these do not address the demands to overturn the EHS counter-opinion or exclude of Richard Adams from the EESC.
Further information will follow.
See also, for complaints to the WHO:
Ga terug naar het hoofdmenu