Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 27 October 2005 - Strasbourg

3. Activities of the European Ombudsman (2004)

  President. The next item is the debate on the report (A6-0276/2005) by Mr Mavrommatis, on behalf of the Committee on Petitions, on the annual report on the activities of the European Ombudsman for the year 2004 (2005/2136(INI)).

  Nikiforos Diamandouros, Ombudsman. Mr President, I wish to thank you for this opportunity to address Parliament and to present the annual report for 2004, my first full year in office.

The year 2004 was hugely significant for the European Union: a year of historic enlargement, European elections, a new Commission and intense debate about the Constitution. These events and the popular attention they attracted had important consequences for the Ombudsman, as I will explain in a minute.

The annual report records our progress in handling complaints, in promoting good administration and in making the Ombudsman’s work better known to citizens. In total, 3 726 complaints were received, a 53% increase compared with the previous year. The rise in complaints does not result from worsening administrative behaviour by the institutions; rather, it reflects citizens’ increased general awareness of matters European and growing knowledge about their rights and about how to exercise those rights.

As I have mentioned, 2004 was a year in which European subjects figured prominently in headlines throughout the Union. I also made intensive efforts to inform citizens about their right to complain to the European Ombudsman and to spread the word about the positive results that have been achieved. All in all, I gave over 30 public lectures and presentations and held over 150 meetings with ombudsmen, public officials and other interlocutors in the Member States and candidate countries.

During 2004, I was able to help almost 70 % of the people who complained to me. The help took one of three forms: opening an inquiry, transferring the case to a competent body or advising on where to turn for a prompt and effective solution to the problem. I closed 251 inquires during the year. In 45 % of the cases, the inquiry revealed no maladministration. Such a finding is not always negative for the complainant, who at least has the benefit of a full explanation from the institutional body concerned of its actions. Furthermore, even when there is no maladministration, I may identify an opportunity for the institutional body to improve the quality of its administration in the future. If so, I point this out in a further remark in the closing decision.

Whenever there is maladministration, I try, if possible, to achieve a positive-sum outcome that satisfies both the complainant and the institution. In 28 % of cases, my inquiries resulted either in the institution concerned settling the case to the satisfaction of the complainant or in a friendly solution. When a friendly solution is not possible, I close the case with a critical remark or make a draft recommendation.

An example of a draft recommendation accepted in 2004 was a case in which the Commission granted ex gratia compensation to a small company that had been given insufficient time to prepare a proposal for a research and development contract.

If a Community institutional body fails to respond satisfactorily to a draft recommendation, the Ombudsman’s ultimate weapon is a special report to the European Parliament. Only one special report was made in 2004, following the Commission’s refusal to reconsider its rules on the grading of press officers in its delegations. I made the draft recommendation in this case because the Commission failed to provide a coherent and convincing explanation of the variations in its current practice, despite having every opportunity to do so during my inquiry.

In my view, it is important that the European institutions should be willing to think again, rather than give the appearance of acting in an arbitrary way. I am grateful for Parliament’s support in this important issue of principle, as expressed in paragraph 11 of Mr Mavrommatis’s report.

Two own-initiative inquiries addressing systemic issues were closed during the year with positive results. The Commission accepted the need to improve the administration of the European schools and gave a commitment to cooperate with parents. I encouraged the Commission to seek to ensure that the schools themselves acknowledge the need to empower parents and to win their trust. The Commission also accepted and implemented a draft recommendation to introduce an internal complaints procedure for seconded national experts.

I would now like to say a few words about my priorities for the future. The first priority is to promote a citizen-centred approach by the EU institutions and bodies in all their activities. To this end, I will seek every opportunity systematically to reach out to the institutions to encourage best practice and promote friendly solutions. The active cooperation of the institutions and bodies is essential to the success of the Ombudsman’s work for citizens. The annual report contains many examples of the institutions taking prompt action to settle cases brought to their attention and responding positively to my proposals and recommendations.

During visits to the institutions and bodies, I underlined the value of reacting promptly and constructively to complaints. The ultimate goal for us all must be to ensure the best possible service for the citizen. I will continue to push for an end to the present confusing situation in which different institutions and bodies apply different codes of good administration.

Parliament has already approved, on 6 September 2001, the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour. That text contains the rules and principles that should apply to all the Union institutions and bodies. The Code has received wide recognition internationally, in the Member States and candidate states, in the Council of Europe and elsewhere in the world. It is, by all accounts, a European success story of which both Parliament and the Ombudsman can be justly proud.

I was encouraged by the positive reaction of the President of the Commission on this point when I met the College of Commissioners in May this year. With the cooperation of the Commission, I believe that it would be possible for a common code to be adopted in 2006.

I also intend to revisit the question of the Ombudsman’s statute. My principal objective here is to ensure that citizens can have full confidence in the Ombudsman’s power to find the truth when hearing witnesses or inspecting documents. I would also like to cooperate with Parliament to ensure that citizens’ complaints about violations of the fundamental rights mentioned in the Charter can be brought before the Court of Justice if an important issue of principle cannot be resolved in any other way. Parliament already has full rights as an institution to initiate cases before the Court. In that context, it could be useful for the Ombudsman to have the power to intervene in such cases; a power, I note, that has already been given to the European Data Protection Supervisor, with whom I had a very friendly and productive meeting last week.

A third priority is to deepen my close cooperation with ombudsmen in the Member States through the European Network of Ombudsmen. The network makes it possible to transfer cases rapidly, share best practice and promote a free flow of information about European law and its implementation at the national, regional and local levels. The aim is to promote good administration throughout the Union so that citizens can enjoy their rights under European law. I am delighted that, following a valuable proposal from the De Rossa report last year, the Committee on Petitions participates in the network as a full member and was represented at the meeting of national ombudsmen, which took place in The Hague in September.

I would like to thank the Members of the Committee on Petitions and, in particular, this year’s rapporteur, Mr Mavrommatis, for their support and constructive proposals as set out in Parliament’s report.

I have already mentioned today many of the matters on which the report contains wise advice, at least to the Ombudsman. As regards other points, I have already undertaken to ask to appear before the Committee on Petitions whenever I deem it advisable and necessary to submit a special report to this House following the rejection of a friendly solution or draft recommendation.

Earlier this month, I presented the Committee with two special reports. The first was on the financial treatment of Commission staff whose children cannot attend the European Schools because of their degree of disability. The second report found that the Council has given no valid reason for continuing to legislate behind closed doors. The Council could easily amend its Rules of Procedure to provide for open legislative meetings.

I am also committed to improving information to citizens about the services provided by members of the European Network of Ombudsmen. I intend to introduce an interactive guide on our website to help complainants find the appropriate ombudsman to deal with, be it at the European, national or regional level.

A few weeks ago, we celebrated the first ten years of the European Ombudsman. To mark the occasion we published a volume tracing the history of the institution. We have also held a number of successful commemorative events, including one for the European Parliament on 27 September this year. Further events will take place in the next few weeks in both Strasbourg and Brussels.

I believe that the relationships of goodwill, trust and understanding that have been built up over the last decade are a precious resource for improving the quality of public administration in Europe to the benefit of citizens. The European Parliament and its Committee on Petitions constitute vital partners for the European Ombudsman in this regard.

  Manolis Mavrommatis (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (EL) Mr President, I thank Mr Diamandouros for the cooperation which we enjoyed throughout the preparation and drafting of this report. My sincere thanks also to the Committee on Petitions, Mr Libicki, all my colleagues here today, Sir Robert Atkins and everyone else who helped with this report.

Commissioner, Mr Diamandouros, ladies and gentlemen, the Ombudsman is an independent institution and a mechanism for controlling the administration of the European Union. The report presented to us by Mr Diamandouros at the meeting of the Committee on Petitions in Strasbourg constitutes a basic source for the drafting of the annual report by the European Parliament on the activities of the European Ombudsman.

It is a fact that complaints increased by 53% in 2004, compared with the previous year. Although it was assumed that enlargement would be the main cause for the increase in complaints to the European Ombudsman, only 51% of the increase was accounted for by the 10 new states. Nonetheless, the increase in complaints does not necessarily mean that there are more cases of maladministration by the institutions of the European Union; it means that the citizens are better informed about their rights. This is due mainly to the intense activity of the Ombudsman. His numerous visits to Member States and third countries, public lectures, press interviews and other meetings in 2004 helped to inform citizens about his role and about the right of citizens to complain. However, despite Mr Diamandouros's activity to inform the public, confusion continues to reign as regards the sectors of competence of the European Ombudsman. To be specific, in 2004, 74.8% of complaints received by the European Ombudsman fell outside his mandate. Consequently, as the European Parliament, we too must contribute to the clear differentiation of the competences of the Community institutions to which European citizens can take recourse in order to exercise their rights.

I also wish to comment on certain statistics in the Ombudsman's annual report. In 2004, 251 enquiries were closed, of which 4 were opened on his own initiative. Twelve friendly solutions were proposed, 36 cases resulted in critical remarks, including one to Parliament for failing to take adequate measures to promote fundamental compliance with smoking rules on its premises, 17 draft recommendations were prepared and one special report was submitted.

An important factor in the efficacy of the institution of the Ombudsman is his cooperation with the institutions of the European Union and the European Parliament in general. I would refer, by way of example, to the regular briefings and meetings between Mr Diamandouros and the Committee on Petitions and its chairman, and his meeting on 25 May 2005 with the College of Commissioners. The conclusions of this meeting emphasise the genuine community of interests between the Commission and the European Ombudsman in ensuring that both the corrective and the interventionist aspect of the Ombudsman's job are carried out successfully.

It is a fact that most complaints concern cases of maladministration. A case of maladministration, in accordance with the Ombudsman's 1997 annual report, occurs when a public body fails to act in accordance with the rule or principle which is binding upon it. 22% of cases of maladministration were based on lack of transparency and refusal of information, 19% were based on discrimination and 12% were based on avoidable delay. In addition, 9% concerned unsatisfactory procedures, 7% unfairness or abuse of power, 6% negligence and 5% legal error.

Bearing these statistics in mind, therefore, the Ombudsman should define the concept of maladministration with reference both to the institutions and bodies to which it applies and to matters which may be the subject of complaints.

Mr President, Mrs Wallstöm, I should also like to point out, as I mention in my report, that it would be most helpful for the Ombudsman to be present in the Committee of Petitions of the European Parliament in order to discuss all forms of refusal on the part of the institution or to organise a friendly solution. The Ombudsman's annual report also demonstrates, among other things, the efforts being made by the Ombudsman to extend and energise the network of national and regional ombudsmen by developing exchanges of information and best practices.

Participation by the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions in this network could facilitate practical cooperation between the European institutions and national and regional ombudsmen and would allow regular contacts with the committees on petitions of the national parliaments and with the ombudsmen of the Member States to be increased.

The finding that 69% of complaints were against the Commission is particularly interesting. For its part, the European Commission should examine the complaints which concern infringements within a reasonable time, in order to ensure that citizens' complaints are examined immediately and effectively.

Finally, a reference point for the preparation of my report was also last year's De Rossa report on the European Ombudsman's 2003 report. Comparing the Ombudsman's 2003 and 2004 reports, the result was positive and guides us to focus on the points of particular interest to the Committee on Petitions. In addition, in this way we can see the material progress made within a year.

To close, I should like to thank all of you and the secretariat of the Committee on Petitions, of course, and all my honourable friends who helped with their amendments in the drafting of this report.

  Margot Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission. Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Mavrommatis, for his report, which is a very useful document. It allows the Commission to take into account the views of the European Parliament on a number of important issues raised by the Ombudsman in his annual report for 2004.

Let me say that, for me, the Commission’s relationship with the Ombudsman is about firmly engaging ourselves to guarantee good administration and openness and, ultimately, democracy. The same applies to our relations with Parliament’s Committee on Petitions. To me, the European Ombudsman has an essential role in building bridges between citizens and the European Union. His actions contribute to enhancing the Commission’s interaction and communication with citizens. The Commission, therefore, will continue to look at different ways of further promoting its cooperation with and commitment to the European Ombudsman.

As is rightly pointed out in Mr Mavrommatis’ report, the number of complaints to the European institutions and bodies addressed by the Ombudsman rose by 53% in 2004. I agree with the Ombudsman’s annual report that this reflects Europeans’ increasing awareness of the European Ombudsman, which is a development that we should welcome.

In light of the Commission’s dedication further to improving and promoting its cooperation with the Ombudsman, I would like to take the opportunity to highlight the very recent reform of the Commission’s internal procedures. The reform aims at strengthening the guarantees of strong political ownership by each commissioner as regards Ombudsman enquiries within his or her domain.

The Commission has decided to replace the existing empowerment – at present granted to the President alone – with an empowerment granted to the Commissioner in charge of the subject-matter of the enquiry addressed to the Ombudsman. In parallel, the Commission Secretariat-General reinforces its role as guardian of the political and administrative coherence and consistency of the Commission’s final replies to the Ombudsman. This reform will enter into force on 1 November 2005.

Furthermore, the Commission needs to strengthen its efforts to agree to friendly solutions proposed by the European Ombudsman. Recommendations for the Commission to follow up certain aspects in order to remedy problems highlighted by different cases need to be taken into account promptly. Proposing solutions that give satisfaction to the citizen and to the administration is one of the main tools of the Ombudsman.

It should be underlined again that the Ombudsman’s inquiries often not only produce positive results for the complainants but also help to improve the quality of our administrative services.

Mr Mavrommatis’ report touches upon the issue of transparency, regarding in particular the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on access to documents, a fundamental right of citizens. The report also points out that Regulation 1049/2001 now applies to Community agencies.

We can also confirm that we examine applications for access to documents with the utmost care and that derogations from the right of access are applied on a case-by-case basis.

The role of the Ombudsman in this field is really important. We have made significant progress in the direction of better and more transparency. This is the case in particular for access to documents in infringement procedures. It is essential that the Commission should have the necessary room for manoeuvre to conduct its procedure totally independently. In these cases, a balance needs to be found between the transparency principle and confidentiality. For closed infringement procedures, the Commission has reviewed its practices and, in principle, documents have now been made available.

The Commission is set on applying procedures that will allow the European Ombudsman to do his job. For example, it is now possible for the Ombudsman to inspect files. It allows him to verify the completeness and accuracy of the information supplied by the Community institution or body concerned. It is, therefore, an important guarantee to the complainant and to the public that the Ombudsman can conduct a thorough and complete investigation.

The Commission attaches great importance to the issue of a code of good administrative behaviour, with binding effect upon all the EU institutions and bodies. We consider this matter with an open mind.

The Commission’s own code entered into force in November 2000. We will report to the bodies concerned the results of our reflections on this issue. The recent creation of a European School of Administration increases the importance of this matter.

The proposal for a new Constitutional Treaty would give the Union a specific legal base to act on this. However, considering the situation, we need to look at the issue differently. Nevertheless, a positive conclusion on this dossier is possible and I hope that we can arrive at the result proposed by the Ombudsman and the rapporteur.

Let me say a few words on the Ombudsman’s Statute. During his visit to the College of Commissioners on 25 May 2005, Mr Diamandouros informed the Commission that he had asked the European Parliament to review certain aspects of the Ombudsman’s Statute. He would like in particular to be entitled to intervene in proceedings before the Court of Justice in cases relating to alleged violations of the rights set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

It should be noted that, on this subject, it is the European Parliament that has the right of initiative and acts by majority vote, subject to Council approval, with the Commission merely issuing an opinion. The Commission will examine any new initiative in this respect with the utmost care and an open mind.

Our willingness to cooperate with the Ombudsman is not only our obligation but is also very important for better administration. This is the reason why we welcome your report. Let me assure you that we continue to engage the Commission to work even closer with the Ombudsman and with Parliament’s Committee on Petitions.

  Richard Seeber, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Diamandouros, I welcome the Ombudsman’s report and would also like to express the warmest congratulations to my colleague Mr Mavrommatis on his draft.

There is little doubt that the Ombudsman is one of the most important aids to securing the citizen’s position in his dealings with the institutions. Whenever people have dealings with large administrative units, an independent, straightforward and, above all, free external monitor is indispensable. I do not suppose it is accidental that it was the Scandinavian states that acquired such an instrument at a very early stage and that thought was given as early as the 1970s to establishing such an office in the Community, something that was eventually accomplished by the Treaty of Maastricht.

The original idea was that the European Ombudsman would have a role as a parliamentary commissioner who would mainly advise and monitor, but the developments in practice have been speedy and have meant that the Ombudsman of today acts as the external monitor for European public administration and highlights recurrent abuses.

Look at the figures for complaints and you find a constant increase, but, as I see it, the primary significance of that is not that European administration has become worse, but that more and more members of the public are endeavouring to assert their rights. That makes it less significant that inadmissible complaints have remained at a constant high level, amounting to some 70-75% on average. What they do indicate is that someone believes they have been on the receiving end of unfair treatment and wants to do something about it.

If dealing with these things is not a permanent feature of daily life, finding the correct form is not always easy, and people ask themselves such questions as: ‘Have I supplied a full description of the facts of the case?’ ‘What, in real terms, makes me feel that I have a complaint?’ ‘Which right has been violated?’ ‘Which institution should take action?’ What the inadmissible complaints should really do, then, is to present us with an opportunity to think about how we can create systems that offer the public a clear and cogent answer or the beginnings of a solution, both quickly and without red tape.

It is for these reasons that the Ombudsman’s efforts to create closer networks among the national complaints offices and between them and himself deserve our wholehearted support, as do his efforts at improving communication. It is by these means alone that we will meet the citizen where he is at the moment, and will be able to allay some of his fears of a Community that is still, alas, largely a faceless entity. There are things that it is very definitely incumbent on the EU to do in this respect: it needs to improve administration, make for more transparency, speedier processes and easier access to the law, not least through non-judicial instruments such as the Ombudsman himself, as well as, of course, this House’s Committee on Petitions.

For that reason, too, I am not particularly happy about the section in the draft report headed ‘Reflections on developments in the Ombudsman's role’ in which there is reference to the present time when ‘a debate is in progress on the failure on the part of European institutions and national governments to educate the peoples of the Union, following the twin referendum failures in France and the Netherlands on the European Constitutional Treaty’, and more of the same besides.

What is this saying? What is at issue here, surely, is not so much a failure to educate as the question of how we can improve the Community’s communications and policies. This is not about our didactic proclamation from on high of things that the population at large do not support.

In this sense, what this report presents us with is both an inventory analysis and a mission, a mission not only to lay down improved rules that will enjoy public support, but also, and at the same time, to ensure that they are properly enforced, while equipping one of these instruments, namely the Ombudsman, with the powers and responsibilities he will need to perform his monitoring role independently, without reference to the courts, free of charge and in a citizen-friendly manner.

  Proinsias De Rossa, on behalf of the PSE Group. – Mr President, I welcome Mr Mavrommatis's report and, indeed, I welcome the European Ombudsman here today to the European Parliament. The Ombudsman's office is a direct link between the citizen and Europe; it enables citizens to make known their concerns about maladministration at European level.

The committee of which I am a member and which prepared this report, the Committee on Petitions, equally, is a direct link with the citizen, but has a different role in that it enables citizens to ensure that authorities in the Member State comply with European rules, regulations, funding etc. So the Ombudsman and the European Parliament's Petitions Committee are, in a sense, complementary to each other.

The very existence of the Ombudsman's office, I believe, is a deterrent to maladministration, and the 10th anniversary of that office deserves a review of the statute. I do hope that this Parliament, which has that responsibility, will undertake that in the course of the next 12 months.

The Ombudsman's office clearly has resolved many problems, but it has not been in a position to resolve them all. Indeed, the fact that 75 % of the complaints the Ombudsman's office receives do not relate directly to European Union institutions and problems therein is, in my view, not necessarily a bad thing. It demonstrates that people are aware that there is a body there that can help them, and the fact that the Ombudsman's office refers them to the appropriate area where they may receive a resolution of their problem is an important service.

I would like to mention a number of issues here; one relates to the European schools. A report is in preparation on the issue of funding for the European schools to enable children with special needs to be catered for, in the same way that all children attending European schools are catered for, free of charge with compulsory education. That is a matter the Commission, and specifically the Commissioner responsible for the budget of the European schools, has to address. Unless the Commission brings forward a detailed analysis of the money required in order to enable the schools to do their job properly, either in providing the special needs education within the schools or providing that education outside of those schools, then we are failing as a Union, and, indeed, as an employer of the parents of these children.

The other issue I want to refer to is the code of good administrative behaviour. As has already been mentioned, this has been adopted by this Parliament; this Parliament itself operates by it and the Council operates by it. There is absolutely no reason why the Commission should not buy into that code of good administrative behaviour, so that we would have a common code for all three institutions. I would appeal to Commissioner Wallström to address that issue and to raise the matter with the college of Commissioners.

The final point I want to make relates to the most recent special report, which is a rarity – special reports from the Ombudsman are a rarity – relating to the need for the Council to meet in public when making law. Your job in promoting the Plan D – debate, democracy and dialogue – is being undermined by the fact that the Council continues to refuse to make law in public. We would not accept that from this Parliament or from any national parliament; the Council should not be allowed to get away with it.

  Luciana Sbarbati, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I thank Mr Mavrommatis for his excellent report, and also the Ombudsman.

The institution of the first ombudsman in Europe dates back to 1809 in Sweden. As an Italian citizen, I should, however, like to mention that it was Giuseppe Mazzini – the bicentenary of whose birth is this year – who instituted the petition by allowing people, both individually and collectively, to submit petitions under Article 10 of the Constitution of the Roman Republic of 1849. It was he who had the idea of a political association of Europe’s peoples in a Europe made up of free nation states federated together: the precursors of the concept of Europe that gained shape and substance a century later in the initial core of the current Union.

Our Ombudsman’s annual report, which is being examined today, gives us an idea of the desire of citizens to interact with Community institutions. The fact that we have to consider, however, is that 72% of the 3 726 complaints received lay outside his competence. It is also significant that 51% of cases were reported by citizens in the enlargement countries. That means that the perception that citizens have of the Union and of their representatives is still confused, that Community citizens are undeniably well aware of their rights, and that they want to exercise their citizenship by complaining. It is also obvious, however, that they are not able to identify the right recipients for their complaints.

The Ombudsman figure and the petition have been a success. That is a fact that cannot be ignored. Today, however, we have to look more closely into the reasons for the mistakes and why people make use of them wrongly. I believe an effort should also be made to reduce the time needed to examine complaints – as was also mentioned in the Mavrommatis report – by improving information exchange and cooperation among the institutions wherever possible.

Ladies and gentlemen, the office of the European Ombudsman was set up by the Maastricht Treaty as a part of European citizenship, which is still an ongoing issue that requires new rights as a result of enlargement and the complexity of migration and globalisation. I think our Ombudsman has fully met the three objectives that he undertook to fulfil: promoting the rule of law; good administration and respect for human rights; and enlargement – and hence closer contact with all citizens, including constant relations with ombudsmen throughout Europe. A political analysis of the data shows, however, that Europeans recognise and thus complain to Community institutions while effectively bypassing national institutions. Therefore, even though people’s perception of Europe corresponds to a different entity – which they imagine endowed with powers and competences – that perception often cannot be made real. We therefore have to do better at orienting European citizens towards our institutions, while accepting the people’s mandate to call on governments to be more open and to transfer areas of sovereignty for the sake of making European action more incisive.

As has been mentioned, the Ombudsman is an independent, impartial body. He has to cooperate with all the other institutions and I believe he will do so to the best of his abilities, with our cooperation and that of all the institutions.

  David Hammerstein Mintz, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (ES) Mr President, I would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur for his excellent report, and the European Ombudsman for the work he does every day and for his annual report.

Commissioner Wallström, although your so-called Plan D to bring us closer to the European citizens, to open up the doors of this Institution and to promote dialogue, is worthy of our support, this does not preclude the right to complain to the Ombudsman, since it is he who offers the citizens an independent analysis in the event that they want to make a complaint about bad government or bad conduct on the part of the European institutions.

There is absolutely no doubt that one of the conclusions that can be drawn from the referendums in France and Holland is that the citizens do not want to be treated as mere passive spectators, but as dynamic players in the process of European integration, who want more transparency and more means for participation.

I believe that the Ombudsman does a very good job. But I would like to mention some of the problems we have faced, one in particular: I would like to express my concern and disapproval at the way in which the Conference of Presidents has dealt with the recent very important special report by Mr Diamandouros.

This report contains an issue which is of great significance to the citizens: the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) apparently did not fully cooperate with the Ombudsman while he was investigating a complaint against it.

The Committee on Petitions — the appropriate Committee — decided, therefore, to draw up a report and listen to both the Ombudsman and the Director of OLAF.

I must express my surprise and amazement at the way in which the leaders of the two main political groups blocked the report and did not allow that hearing to take place. And to make matters even worse, the Conference of Presidents, on the insistence of the two main groups, prevented the Committee on Petitions from hearing the Ombudsman and the Director of OLAF, something which I believe Parliament’s Rules of Procedure do not allow it to do.

I believe that the reasons given — that we were immersed in the process of electing a new Director of OLAF — were not acceptable, and that this House should examine this issue, because it has done no good, either in terms of transparency or in terms of responding to the citizens’ complaints.

I believe that these actions cause collateral damage: they weaken the role of the European Ombudsman, which is completely irresponsible.

In reaction to this, in agreement with the rapporteur, Mr Mavrommatis, I have presented several amendments to his report, so that Parliament may respond to the Ombudsman whenever he presents us with a special report.

Since the amendments presented were supported by my colleagues in the Committee on Petitions, they are now part of the report that will be presented to the House. Naturally, it falls to Parliament to decide whether or not it agrees with the recommendations of the Ombudsman.

What is unacceptable is that no position should be adopted, thereby damaging and weakening the crucial and extremely important role of the European Ombudsman.

  Mario Borghezio, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Ombudsman’s report for 2004 does not, in our opinion, contain an overall view of the principles involved, even though the need for one could certainly be felt. As many speakers have emphasised, the referendum results, which sank the draft European Constitution in some major countries with great democratic traditions, show that there is a strong sense of impatience and widespread dissatisfaction among European citizens with regard to the democratic nature of the European institutions.

In the eyes of the vast majority of European citizens, the European Union is seen as a Moloch, and the European Ombudsman should have felt the need to voice this feeling, which has been expressed so clearly. The report before us, however, is like a document from a statistics bureau: it is sterile and gives no hint of any battle over the principles and motivations behind the subjects dealt with.

We need only think of the sensitive area of subsidies and public funding, for instance, which are responsible for perhaps the major part of the impression that European citizens have of the lack of transparency in Europe’s institutions. To whom can European citizens turn when they see a sign for huge and perhaps useless works bearing the words ‘funded by the European Union’ and they think of the money they have paid in taxes? Why have you never thought of demanding that, wherever such signs are erected or EU-funded works are carried out, there should be an indication of how citizens – ordinary people – can reach the institution that should be upholding their desire for transparency?

If I think of what comes out every time that the anti-Mafia commission in my country touches on the use of European funds in certain regions, I wonder what an honest citizen from Sicily, Apulia, Calabria or Campania thinks when he or she sees such public works undertaken perhaps through non-transparent tendering processes.

I believe that the office of the European Ombudsman needs to change direction and that the essential, sensitive subject of the role of a modern democracy in Europe should be addressed. The report talks in general terms of contacts with national ombudsmen, without specifying what was discussed at such meetings or explaining the spirit behind this cooperation. Although this network is certainly useful and we welcome it, there is no explanation, either, of the ramifications of the work that it can accomplish through the presence of national ombudsmen in the individual Member States.

The idea of the European Ombudsman’s role that emerges from the report is somewhat ‘over-bureaucratic’, for a change. In addition, Mr Diamandouros, your statement of intent for your first five years of work is very general: you confine yourself to saying that citizens must know their rights, without mentioning the fact that a measure is currently being implemented that greatly endangers citizens’ freedom: the European arrest warrant. Let us therefore uphold the freedom of Europe’s citizens!

  Marcin Libicki, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, I am delighted to take the floor during this debate, since I am sharing it with individuals for whom I have a great deal of respect. I refer to the Ombudsman, Mr Diamandouros, with whom the Committee on Petitions, of which I am Chairman, cooperates very closely, the rapporteur, Mr Mavrommatis, who is one of the most active members of our committee, and Commissioner Wallström, with whom our committee maintains close and friendly contacts.

I believe that an ombudsman needs three characteristics in order to perform his duties well. The first is to be professional and competent, and Professor Diamandouros possesses these attributes to a very high degree. The second is to be objective and impartial, and there can be no doubt that these are also qualities that can be ascribed to him. We are not aware of anyone ever having accused him of failing to perform his duties objectively, and it would have come to our attention had this been the case. I repeat, we have never come across any such accusations. The third characteristic is something that is less frequently mentioned nowadays, namely performing one’s duties with dignity. Professor Diamandouros demonstrates a great deal of dignity in the course of his duties. The role of ombudsman also demands a certain ability to make the job one’s own. This is very much apparent in Professor Diamandouros’ energetic approach, and we are delighted that this is the case.

Every official should enjoy the respect of others, and this is true in the case of Professor Diamandouros. I am very much aware of this, since I am in close contact with the national ombudsmen, who are the best judges. Professor Zoll, the Polish Ombudsman, has always expressed his respect for Professor Diamandouros’ activities, and we find this very convincing proof. After all, our Committee on Petitions is fully aware of the high standard of Professor Diamandouros’ work, and he was also re-elected by an overwhelming majority. We should like to thank you on all these counts, Professor Diamandouros, and I should also like to thank the rapporteur.

  Jean-Claude Martinez (NI). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Diamandouros, this year marks the tenth anniversary of the European Ombudsman, as our rapporteur, Mr Mavrommatis, points out in his very comprehensive and pleasing report.

Forgive me for saying so, Mr Diamandouros, but you only have competence with regard to maladministration issues. Therefore, as regards the issue of the feta cheese made by my Greek friends, you are not acknowledged as having competence with regard to feta cheese, which is produced in Lozère using goats’ milk from the south of France.

On the other hand, you do have competence with regard to the violation of fundamental rights, in the European Parliament itself, to which 10% of your work relates. For example, a person’s fundamental right to speak his or her own language: the 35 non-attached Members do not benefit from interpretation services at group meetings. Why is this so? Because between a monkey and a political homo sapiens, the non-attached Member is the missing link of humankind. Therefore, when we, the non-attached Members, communicate among ourselves, we scratch under our armpits, we stick our tongues out and we make grunting noises. That is obviously the reason why we do not need any interpreters.

Second example: everyone has the right to accommodation, water and toilets here in Parliament. Well, we, the non-attached Members, have offices without toilets and without water. That is why we are calling for the Geneva Conventions on the rights of political prisoners and, in particular, on the right to go to the toilet, to be implemented. That is why, Mr Diamandouros, I will be nominating you as a candidate for next year’s Sakharov Prize if you denounce the violation of the human rights of the 35 Members who are being denied their right to use the toilet.

It is true that the arrival of the Turks will resolve matters for the non-attached Members, inasmuch as we will perhaps have the right to use the toilets of the Turkish Members. That goes to show that the Lord works in mysterious ways. It is Turkey’s joining the EU that will finally mean that the political minorities – the non-attached Members – are respected within the European Parliament …

  Andreas Schwab (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Madam Vice-President, Mr Diamandouros, Mr Mavrommatis, let me start by saying how very grateful I am for the report that the Committee on Petitions and its rapporteur Mr Mavrommatis have produced; what makes it so very successful is that it revisits the most important problems that the Ombudsman addresses in his report and seeks to find a solution to them.

Over the past year, the Petitions Committee and the Ombudsman worked very well together; I believe that the way in which they managed this should be a model not only for the cooperation between the Ombudsman and the Commission but also – and this is a point to which I shall return later – for the cooperation between the Ombudsman and the Council. While this working relationship was, in the overwhelming majority of cases in 2004, marked by a great willingness to cooperate, it has to be said that there were a number of cases in which things could have turned out much better.

The functions of an ombudsman – a position that the state from which I come has abolished – are of fundamental importance to the European Union, as he or she communicates directly with the European Union’s citizens and thereby brings them closer to its institutions. Despite all the difficulties to which Mr Seeber referred, this has already made it possible for much to be achieved, but we should nevertheless keep trying to persuade the public of the advantages that the Ombudsman can offer in bringing to light those abuses in European administration that are rather more serious than the case just described by Mr Martinez, and in following these problems up.

Through his work, the Ombudsman ensures adherence to the highest administrative standards within the European Union, its institutions and bodies. Even in the 113 – out of a total of 251 – cases in which it was not possible to establish maladministration, the Ombudsman does do helpful work, since the institution concerned – the Commission, for example – can indicate ways in which quality might be improved in future. In individual cases, the Ombudsman can spare the institution unjustified criticism, being, as a sort of outsider, able to lay claim to absolute objectivity.

As Mr Mavrommatis pointed out, the figures have, over the past few years, been on a constant upward curve. I am sure that reflects the confidence that is placed in you. We should, however, strive for a closer link between representing the interests of those members of the public who turn to their MEPs, and the work of your own institution, enabling us to make a better and more efficient job of handling their concerns.

There is one thing left for which I would like to offer you the warmest thanks, and that is for your positive response to the question from the German Junge Union – of which I am still a member – that was brought in by Mr Brok. I will take this opportunity to point out that the Council, which is the object of my criticism in this regard, is again, today, distinguishing itself by its lamentable absence. By holding its meetings behind closed doors, the Council does nothing to achieve the goal of the European Constitution that it played a part in adopting, which has to do with the most open possible approach to defending the interests of the public and speaking up for Europe’s citizens and inhabitants. It is indeed a positive sign that one European institution should be able to take a critical view of the actions of another and be guided in so doing by nothing other than the goals of the European Constitution. For that, Mr Diamandouros, I should like to thank you most warmly.

  Alexandra Dobolyi (PSE). – (HU) Mr President, firstly I would like to thank both the Ombudsman and Mr Mavrommatis for their excellent report, and would like to begin by making a personal observation. I am an MEP from a new Member State, and when we discussed the annual report of the Ombudsman last year, I had no personal experience with the Committee on Petitions or with the institution of the Ombudsman.

However, as Mr Mavrommatis mentioned in his report, in the course of the activities of the Ombudsman last year and his campaign in the new Member States, a great number of Hungarian citizens became aware of their right to submit a petition to the European Union. I am delighted to see that they are actually exercising this right, as well, and – even if the petitions submitted do not always comply with the expectations of the Union and we do not always know what to do with them – it is of considerable assistance to citizens of new Member States to have another forum to contact.

As mentioned by Mrs Wallström in her speech, the Commission has a reform plan to assist our efforts. European citizens are justified to expect public institutions to work efficiently and openly. I hope that in the future the Commission will implement the reform endeavours formulated in the speech.

Echoing the opinions communicated by many of my colleagues in the course of the debate, I, too, would like to ask the Council – as expressed by the Ombudsman in his special report – to consider opening up all Council sessions to the personnel of the other EU institutions. But if the Council insists on making all political decisions behind closed doors, at least the legislation procedure should be made transparent to us, and we should be allowed to be present when such decisions are made. Mr Diamandouros prepared a material last year resulting in an even closer cooperation between the Ombudsman and the Committee on Petitions, and created the so-called European Network of Ombudsmen, mentioned in his introduction. This is also to be welcome, and I am very pleased that this year the delegates of the Committee on Petitions have been able to take part in the meeting of this network, too.

I would like to summarise my comments by pointing out to all of us that the activity of the European Ombudsman in the past ten years has been really successful, but there are still a great number of tasks to be tackled. And all of us, as well as all EU institutions and bodies must focus on these tasks, so that European citizens can feel that we are working for them, for the assertion of their rights and for finding solutions to public matters in their interest.

  Mieczysław Edmund Janowski (UEN).  – (PL) Mr President, Mr Diamandouros, I should like to thank the Ombudsman for his detailed statement on his activities in 2004. This was a particularly significant year in view of the EU’s enlargement to include 10 new Member States. I should also like to pay tribute to Mr Mavrommatis and to thank him for his excellent report.

The European Ombudsman referred to the three challenges that he faces. These include enforcing the rights of citizens as set out in EU legislation, adhering to the highest standards of administration and ensuring that measures taken on behalf of citizens are effective and of the highest quality. Professor Diamandouros has responded positively to all these key challenges. I should therefore like to pay tribute to him, not least for his attempts to help people in cases that fall outside his jurisdiction.

The fact that this institution has been in existence for 10 years serves as an excellent example of the growing awareness of citizens’ rights in our Community. I say this as a representative of Poland, a new Member State, which has gained experience in this field through the institutions of the Polish Ombudsman and the Polish Ombudsman for Children. These factors all help to create a European society of citizens who are aware of their rights and obligations, and this is a point I should like to stress.

It goes without saying that a great deal remains to be done. I have found that young people in particular are aware of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, and this means there is reason to be hopeful. It is also crucially important for the principle of transparency be adhered to wherever possible.

There is one small point I should like to make to the Ombudsman. In my opinion, it was a mistake for him to refer to the Constitutional Treaty, since this document has no legal force, and we are all aware of the state of affairs following the two referendums. I believe that the current arrangements enshrined in the Treaty of Maastricht still hold. Finally, I would stress that it would be a fine thing if this institution became redundant, because absolute compliance with legislation had been achieved. If I may, I should also like to congratulate Mr Diamandouros on his anniversary, and to wish him ad multos annos!

  Ryszard Czarnecki (NI).  – (PL) Mr President, Mr Diamandouros, the Ombudsman’s home country of Greece won the European basketball championships a few weeks ago for the first time in over a decade. I mention this because Parliament’s motion for a resolution states that the Ombudsman provided effective assistance in almost 70% of cases referred to him. I can assure the Ombudsman that his fellow countrymen, who are the best basketball players in Europe, would tell him that a 70% success rate for two-or three-point field goals is unheard of, and I should like to congratulate him on his achievement. I should also like to congratulate him on the increase in the number of complaints, since this is proof that people take his institution seriously and believe there is a genuine need for it.

I do not agree with the claim that only half of this increase is due to the 10 new Member States, as stated in the draft resolution. The word ‘only’ in this sentence should be replaced by ‘as much as’, since the institution of the European Ombudsman is a very new concept for the citizens of the new Member States. The Ombudsman should rest assured that in time he will be bombarded with our complaints.

  Péter Olajos (PPE-DE). – (HU) Mr President, first of all, please allow me to congratulate my colleague, the rapporteur Manolis Mavrommatis, who has reviewed with great care the anniversary report of the European Ombudsman on his activities in 2004, submitted to the European Parliament. I, too, support the close cooperation of the Ombudsman with the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament, because this enables citizens’ petitions to reach the decision-makers of the European Parliament directly, providing a direct feedback on the efficiency of EU legislation.

The 2004 annual report issued by the European Ombudsman reveals that the number of complaints received increased by 53% in 2004 compared to 2003. Even more surprisingly, only half of this increase originates from the ten newly joined Member States. In other words, it may seem that the citizens and businesses of the new Member States have fewer grievances in the EU, or are less prone to complaining.

As the representative of one of the newly joined Member States, I can tell you from experience that neither of these is true. Although it is true that the majority of the ten new Member States submitted fewer complaints compared to the proportion of their population, the main reason for this lies in their relative unfamiliarity with the institution of the European Ombudsman, and not in a lower number of grievances.

Unfortunately, under information, as well as an ingrained negative conditioning, a fear of making a complaint rooted in past experiences still persists in the eight newly joined post-socialist states. It is an unfortunate fact that to this day citizens are still contacting us, MEPs, informally, to tell us about discrimination suffered in European institutions. Therefore I know from experience that it is difficult even for us to persuade them to take their complaint to the Ombudsman.

As an MEP, but not as a European employee, I often see discrimination even one and a half years after accession. One example I could mention is the Parliament practice whereby the questions we ask in writing are only translated into our mother tongues and the languages of the fifteen old Member States, and the answers received are only given in our mother tongue, English and French.

In particular, I would like to call the attention of Mr Diamandouros to a discriminative phenomenon experienced in the course of admission to European institutions. One of the conditions of the admission exams announced to the 25 Member States is that the exam will be conducted in two of the 15 languages of the EU. This means that while a candidate from an old Member State may take the exam in his/her mother tongue and a foreign language, a candidate from a new Member State cannot use his/her mother tongue.

Countless similar complaints are received day by day. The Parliament debated the Vaxholm issue of Sweden on Tuesday, but we see similar discrimination committed against businesses in new Member States, as well. Allow me to mention the case code named Soko Bunda and Soko Pannonia, involving the exclusion of several dozens of Hungarian businesses from the German market with methods that are finally considered wrong even by the courts. Incidentally, my fellow MEPs and I have also contacted the competent Commissioner in this matter.

In view of these issues, I believe that the continuous information of citizens is of utmost importance. I was delighted to read that citizens in Member States are increasingly aware of their right to contact the Ombudsman concerning any administrative irregularities they experience. In particular, I find it very important to stress that the institution of the Ombudsman is not just one of the many superior authorities or an enforcement office – it is a special institution established to assist citizens with their concerns and complaints. An additional plus in the Ombudsman’s report for 2004 is that apart from a presentation of cases and investigations it also provides a topical analysis of the work carried out. I am particularly delighted by the fact that the Ombudsman undertakes an active public role in order to inform citizens.

  Genowefa Grabowska (PSE).  (PL) Mr Diamandouros, as Ombudsman you represent the 450 million citizens of the European Union. This is the case both when they write to you as individuals and when they take collective action. The law states that any citizen of the EU and any natural person residing in a Member State can refer a complaint to you. As well as adults, who can protect their own interests, this includes those of the EU’s citizens who are not yet of age, or in other words children. Your report contains certain indications that your institution takes an interest in this issue, but I should like to ask a more general question. To what extent do you personally feel responsible for representing the youngest citizens of the EU, and for representing their interests and needs in their dealings with EU institutions?

Before I put my second question to the Ombudsman, I should like to congratulate him on his consistent application of the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour. This Code has been adopted by the administrations of the Member States, and it is gaining in popularity throughout Europe, including in my country, Poland. Good administration starts with the proper selection of staff, however, and with the recruitment and employment of officials in an entirely non-discriminatory fashion and in full respect of the principle of equality. In this context, I should therefore like to ask your opinion of the procedures for employing citizens from the new Member States in the EU institutions. Does the fact that few or none of these citizens are employed as officials, and in particular as high-ranking EU officials, not amount to discrimination?

Mr Diamandouros, our goal is an EU that is closer to its citizens, and you have taken the first step in this direction. You are closest to the EU’s citizens, and they both need and appreciate you. I should like to congratulate you on this score.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (PSE). –  (PL) Mr President, the European Ombudsman performs an extremely important role in democratic European society. He is a direct point of contact for citizens, who refer complaints about cases of maladministration within the European institutions to him. Although the vast majority of complaints, 75% to be more precise, concern matters that are outside his competence, this would indicate that the Ombudsman is frequently regarded as a last resort in the fight against the incompetence of national authorities. In view of this fact, the provision of reliable and detailed information to citizens about their rights and the role of the European Ombudsman should be regarded as a priority.

Professor Diamandouros deserves much credit for his activities to date in the role of Ombudsman, which include the drafting and distribution of annual reports and a strong public presence in terms of the provision of information to citizens. Nevertheless, it is absolutely essential that efforts continue to make these activities more effective. The Ombudsman should be a guardian of good administration within the European institutions, and he should cooperate even more closely with his counterparts at local and regional level. Citizens’ complaints must be dealt with rapidly and effectively, and the Ombudsman should therefore be supported in his efforts to encourage the European institutions to deal with complaints more speedily. These complaints relate, inter alia, to refusals of access to documents. Public access to information relating to the European institutions serves as proof that the actions of the latter are open and transparent, and our aim should therefore also be to guarantee this right to all citizens of the European Union. These citizens are after all the ones for whom these institutions are working.

In particular, I would suggest firstly that the European Commission should stop refusing to distribute its documents, and secondly that it should adopt the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour without delay. This would put an end to the current situation whereby the European institutions apply different codes of practice.

(Applause)

  Nikiforos Diamandouros, Ombudsman. Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking Members of Parliament for their kind remarks on the work of the Ombudsman during the past year. I am deeply appreciative of the attention and the very careful and constructive comments. I note that a great many of the comments came from the new Member States, which I welcome very much as an indication of their commitment to this institution. I welcome the tenor, the nature, the thrust and the intent of the remarks by the Vice-President of the Commission, Mrs Wallström. I am delighted to hear her formally announce the reform that the Commission is about to adopt as of 1 November, which will make it possible for the complaints to be handled at a higher level, with a greater degree of responsibility and uniformity.

I appreciate the Commissioner’s commitment to greater cooperation, particularly the encouraging words concerning the proposed revision of the Statute. I note, finally, that we can look forward to a binding code. I see that from your positive remarks and I am very grateful for the political will you have demonstrated on issues to do with the Ombudsman. That is exactly the kind of cooperation I look forward to from the Commission. I want to thank the Commissioner for that publicly.

Concerning the various comments from Members, allow me to mention briefly those of Mr Seeber. Clearly we have a high percentage of inadmissibles, but we have managed to help 70% of those who come to us and whose complaints are not admissible. I find that to be a satisfactory percentage of citizens we can help, even though they are outside the mandate.

I wish to thank Mr De Rossa for his remarks. At the last meeting of the national ombudsmen held in September in The Hague, we took specific decisions on how to address, through the network, mechanisms to expedite the handling of issues outside the mandate. I hope to be able to take further steps to reduce the number of inadmissibles.

Concerning Mr Hammerstein Mintz’s remarks, for which I thank him, the report that he referred to relates to 2005. It is therefore not part of my report to this body for 2004; it is a report concerning OLAF that will be examined next year. As far as I am concerned, I have completed my duty to Parliament and have submitted a special report. It is now up to this august body as to how it wishes to move forward.

I appreciate the remarks from Mr Borghezio and Mr Martinez, but I need to point out that the Ombudsman, unlike Parliament, is not a political body. Therefore, it is not within my mandate to get involved in the kind of political activities that you are asking of me. I fear that, were I to do so, this body – to which I am ultimately accountable – would object to my taking political initiatives which are beyond my mandate.

(FR) I am aware, Mr Martinez, of the problem that arises as a result of your being a non-attached Member. Yet, once again, I will confine what I have to say to the content of your remarks. However, your remarks fall outside the scope of my mandate as they are, instead, to do with political issues.

I want to thank Mr Libicki for his cooperation in his capacity as chairman of the Committee on Petitions. I am also grateful to all the staff of the committee for their help and I hope that this cooperation will continue.

The remarks by Mrs Dobolyi and Mr Olajos were very constructive. Let me just say to Mr Olajos that I am currently dealing with a case concerning discrimination in language candidacies. I have asked for further information. That particular case is still being examined and I hope to be able to report to this body next year on the outcome.

Finally, let me say to Mrs Grabowska that I am, as you know, very sensitive to issues concerning children. One of my special reports to this body this year had to do with the special education needs of severely disabled children. Therefore this is very much a concern of mine and I will be happy to consider any other complaints. I have not in fact received any other complaints relating to children. Nor I am aware of having received any complaint about recruitment and the filling of senior posts. However, because I receive many complaints concerning recruitment, I shall be very sensitive to that issue.

Lastly, I know there is a case concerning recruitment pending before the Court of First Instance. That is therefore automatically outside my mandate and I will have to await the decision of the judicial authorities.

I should like to thank Members of Parliament and the Commissioner again for their remarks and support.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 11.30 a.m.

(The sitting was suspended at 11.25 a.m. and resumed at 11.30 a.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR VIDAL-QUADRAS ROCA
Vice-President

  Hannes Swoboda (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, I wish to say something pursuant to Rules 142 and 143 of the Rules of Procedure. Many Members of this House were surprised to note that yesterday’s budget debate was over just after 11 a.m., although it had been allotted time up until midday. Now it may well be that the time had not been properly worked out, and it is the case that a number of Members did not turn up, and that there were those – the Commission and the Council, for example – who spoke with unexpected brevity.

I would ask the House’s Bureau, however, to give some thought to whether it might not be possible to respond more flexibly under such circumstances, particularly by giving the floor to those Members who were present in the Chamber right up to the very end of the debate – if they so desire it, that is – or by letting them speak for longer. Instead, Members were given only a minute each in which to speak, and we wasted almost an hour in which no business was transacted.

Could the Bureau perhaps introduce a rule on this, so that this debate may be conducted flexibly, and the time available used to the full?

(Applause)

  President. Thank you very much, Mr Swoboda. We take good note of your request.