Istungi stenogramm

Neljapäev, 27. oktoober 2011 - Strasbourg

5. Ombudsmani aastaaruanne 2010 (arutelu)

  El Presidente. − Nuestro primer punto es el informe de Iliana Malinova Iotova, en nombre de la Comisión de Peticiones, sobre el Informe anual relativo a las actividades del Defensor del Pueblo en 2010 [2011/2106(INI)] (A7-0285/2011).

  Илияна Малинова Йотова, докладчик. − Службата на Европейския омбудсман е създадена с Договора от Маастрихт като една от характеристиките на гражданството на Европейския съюз. Член 24 от Договора за функционирането на Европейския съюз урежда правото на подаване на жалба до Европейския омбудсман.

На 27 септември 2010 г. се навършиха 15 години от създаването на институцията на Омбудсмана и тя беше отбелязана с представяне на стратегия за развитието й до 2014 г. Защитата на европейските граждани се промени през последните 15 години благодарение на независимостта на Омбудсмана и на демократичния контрол върху прозрачността на неговата дейност от страна на Европейския парламент. Опитът от тези 15 години позволява на Омбудсмана да види основните проблеми в лошото администриране, структурните слабости в отношенията между институциите, както и между институциите и гражданите.

С активността си пред 2010 г. г-н Диамандурос демонстрира ангажираност в подобряване информираността на гражданите на Европейския съюз за техните права и как те могат да бъдат защитени. Става дума най-вече за правото на добра администрация, правото на достъп до документи на Европейския съюз, който понякога се отказва дори на нас, евродепутатите, правото да се участва в диалог с институциите на Европейския съюз и правото да се обърнат към Омбудсмана.

Категорично доказателство за това е създаването на интерактивния портал и на уебсайта на Омбудсмана, чрез който гражданите се информират към кого и за какво могат да подават жалби. Деветнайсет хиляди души са се възползвали от тази услуга през миналата година. Благодарение на този портал, жалбите към Омбудсмана през 2010 г. са намалели с 400 броя в сравнение с предишната година.

Въпреки всичко, обаче, и тази година най-много жалби са подадени във връзка с прозрачността и достъпа до информация. Над 30% от жалбите са в тази посока.

В трудните икономически условия, в които се намира Европа в момента, евроскептицизмът нараства в повечето държави-членки. В условията на криза все повече държави търсят начини и граждани имат желание да изкажат гражданските си позиции и да изразят недоволство, когато правата са им нарушени. Те изпращат жалбите си до парламентарната комисия по петиции, която понякога забавя тези жалби и петиции с 3-4 години и ги прави неефективни.

Смятам, че г-н Диамандурос със своята работа подобрява качеството на прозрачност и информираност на европейците, но както той самият веднъж заяви: „Аз съм един, а вие сте повече от 700“. Затова за тази кауза са необходими усилията на всички. В тази връзка бих искала да отбележа и да благодаря на Омбудсмана за доброто сътрудничество с парламентарната комисия по петиции.

Европейският омбудсман работи в тясно сътрудничество и със своите колеги от държавите-членки в така наречената Мрежа на омбудсманите. През 2010 г. по 977 случая жалбите са били пренасочени към членове на Европейската мрежа на омбудсманите. През 2010 г. Омбудсманът продължава да упражнява своите правомощия по активен и балансиран начин, за което свидетелства броят на предприетите проверки въз основа на подадените жалби през миналата година - 323, като по-голямата част от проверките засягат Европейската комисия. И затова настояваме комисарят, който отговаря за междуинституционалните отношения, да вземе мерки в това отношение.

Пример за ефикасността на Омбудсмана е и това, че принуди Агенцията по лекарства за по-добър достъп до нейните архиви, до нейните документи. С влизането в сила на Лисабонския договор през 2009 г. в правомощията на Европейския омбудсман се включи и възможността за проверка на лошо администриране в рамките на общата външна политика и политиката за сигурност, както и възможността да представя пред парламентарната комисия по петиции специални доклади, когато институциите не дават задоволителни отговори на отправените им оплаквания.

В заключение бих искала да изразя още веднъж подкрепата си и съм сигурна, че няма да бъда единствена в тази зала за информационната кампания, която г-н Диамандурос има намерение да инициира във връзка с популяризирането на Хартата на човешките права, като се надявам, че тя ще бъде неразделна част от едно бъдещо законодателство.

  Nikiforos Diamandouros, Ombudsman. − Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for this opportunity to address you. I wish to thank the Committee on Petitions and especially the Chair, Ms Mazzoni, and the rapporteur, Ms Iotova. They have offered me valuable support and advice in the report before you today, and I am deeply grateful for that.

Parliament and the Ombudsman both work to ensure that citizens and residents of the EU can enjoy their rights to the full, but do so in different ways. The Ombudsman’s mandate is more limited. I can only conduct inquiries into complaints against EU institutions, whilst you can examine what Member States are doing as well. Furthermore, Parliament, as a sovereign political body, can deal with petitions that request changes in the law or new laws. In contrast, my role is more specific: it is to help uncover maladministration and attempt to put it right.

Maladministration encompasses all kinds of poor or improper administrative behaviour, from discrimination or other violations of fundamental rights to late payments, and from publishing misleading information to failure to reply to correspondence. Unlike court rulings, my decisions are not legally binding. However, I use the power of persuasion to achieve friendly solutions with which both sides – that is, the complainant and the European bodies concerned – can be satisfied. The outcome can thus be more flexible and often faster than the courts.

After my intervention, institutions and bodies have very often settled bills, paid interest, released documents, remedied injustices and put an end to discrimination. I make efforts to help every complainant who turns to the Ombudsman, even in cases when the complaint is not within my mandate.

In January 2009, as just mentioned by Ms Iotova, I launched an interactive guide on my website, which is accessible in all 23 official languages. This guide aims to direct complainants to the body best placed to help them. The number of inadmissible complaints submitted to me has since shown a significant decline. I attribute this decline, at least in part, to the fact that, by using the interactive guide, more citizens are finding the right address to turn to the first time around. I note that since its launch more than 60 000 people have received advice through the guide.

Reducing the number of inadmissible complaints has been a long-standing demand of Parliament, and I wish to register my response to that. We should not underestimate how important it is for citizens to be guided to the most appropriate complaint-handling body from the outset and to be spared the frustrations and delays associated with having to identify the right institution on their own. In contrast to the reduction of the complaints outside my mandate, the numbers of inquiries opened and closed in 2010 – that is, 335 and 326 respectively – remained roughly stable compared to 2009. This trend confirms that more of the people turning to the European Ombudsman are doing so for the right reasons.

I am pleased to note also that, in 2010, 55% of all investigations were either settled by the institution or resulted in a friendly solution. In the other cases I issued a recommendation that was accepted by the institution, thereby satisfying the complainant, or I did not find an instance of maladministration. Only in 33 cases did I issue a critical remark or, in one case, a special report submitted to this august body. The number of critical remarks issued by my office has shown a sustained reduction in recent years. This suggests that the EU institutions are taking a more proactive role in resolving complaints and enabling win-win situations. This is obviously always preferable for the complainant and the institution concerned.

In 2010 the most common allegation examined by the Ombudsman was lack of transparency in the EU administration. This allegation arose in 33% of all closed inquiries and included refusal of information and access to documents. I note with concern that the number of transparency cases has remained depressingly and consistently high over the past few years. Although Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has been in force for ten years now, it is still puzzling to observe some institutions struggling with the principle enshrined in the regulation: that openness is the basic rule in the EU legal order and secrecy the exception.

For my part, I will continue to insist on the fundamental right of access to documents and I will continue to endeavour to raise awareness of the right to address the Ombudsman and to petition Parliament so that citizens can best seek redress. Furthermore, I believe that the EU institutions should not only react properly and in the spirit of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 when receiving requests for access to documents, but that institutions should act proactively – I repeat, proactively – in putting documents into the public domain.

I have also taken additional measures to enhance transparency with respect to the Ombudsman’s own operations. From the beginning of this year I have started publishing information on my website about all new enquiries into complaints that I open, as opposed to those that I close. There are many other ways in which the institutions and bodies of the EU can become more citizen-friendly. In order consistently to deliver good administration – the key component of being citizen-friendly – institutions and bodies need to nurture a culture of service to citizens. A body that seeks to promote such a culture of service will encourage the members of its staff not only to respect good administration as a legal right but also to be polite, helpful and cooperative in dealing with citizens, willing to explain their activities and the reasoning behind the decisions taken, and ready to accept public scrutiny of their conduct.

A concise statement of these and other public service principles would, I believe, help promote citizens’ trust in the European civil service and the EU institutions. I have therefore set myself the task of drafting such a statement of public service principles which the conduct of EU officials should reflect.

In order to take account of the best practices which exist in the Member States, I asked my national colleagues for information and their views. Once that process was completed I launched a public consultation on the draft statement of public service principles earlier this year, to which I have received numerous valuable contributions. Next month I shall publish a report on the consultation and its outcome. Much more still needs to be done. A recent Eurobarometer survey commissioned by the Ombudsman and the Parliament reveals that one major challenge we face is that most European citizens are not aware of their rights. For example, more than 70% of the 27 000 respondents did not feel sufficiently informed about the Charter of Fundamental Rights. A further 13% had never even heard of the Charter. In addition, many citizens do not know where to turn if they encounter problems either with the application of EU law in general or in the exercise of their rights, whether at regional, national or European level.

To conclude, although it is clear to me that much has been achieved to date, it is equally clear to me that there is much more work ahead for all of us – Ombudsmen, Parliament, the other institutions and the European network of Ombudsmen – in order to enhance citizens’ trust in the EU and to consolidate a culture of service in the institutions. Closer cooperation between all of us, engaging in systematic dialogue, learning from best practices whenever and wherever they can be found, allocating more resources to responding to citizens’ enquiries and complaint handling are all key aspects of building trust, of serving citizens and of helping them enjoy their rights more fully.

I am certain that in the years to come we will achieve much more in that direction and, in so doing, we shall make our modest contribution to the deepening of the rule of law and to the enhancement of the quality of democracy. Honourable Members, I look forward to your remarks, and I welcome the presence of Commissioner Kroes.

  Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, what a great start to the day: firstly to replace my dear colleague Maroš Šefčovič; secondly, to sit next to the Ombudsman, and thirdly, to be involved in a discussion about a very important issue. I would like to congratulate the honourable Member, Ms Iotova, on her report, which is one of those base elements where we can start the discussion.

I welcome this report. As the Ombudsman’s report it represents a good start, one which is closer to the European citizen. Especially with regard to Ms Iotova’s report, it offers a clear and exhaustive overview of the activities of the Ombudsman – not only for the past year – and is also a very useful tool for the other institutions.

Let me also take the opportunity to thank the Ombudsman personally for his report, which reflects the constructive relations our institutions have built together and which show the outside world that we are working in close cooperation. This does not mean that we always agree 100% on everything but, if that were the case, it would be less challenging.

Relations between the Commission and the Ombudsman are very fruitful and very positive. There are some outstanding issues on which both parties are committed to making every effort to reach mutual understanding. Since the Commission is the main Union institution that takes decisions which have a direct impact on citizens, I believe there is nothing unusual in it being the principal object of inquiries. So there is nothing new here and we should not be surprised.

As regards cases with critical and further remarks, these are specially registered and closely followed by the Ombudsman, who publishes a study every year on each institution’s follow-up to his critical and further remarks. Of course we need to be aware that your attention is not confined to the one moment when you make a remark and that the follow-up is also closely monitored.

Last year the Commission was able to follow up 31% of the critical remarks issued by the Ombudsman., which represents a considerable proportion. It is worth noting that the number of critical remarks addressed to the Commission continues to decrease, representing 12% of the inquiries closed in 2010. If you compare this with 14% in 2009 and 16% in 2008, 12% is not a bad score. It reflects the fruitful efforts by the Commission to improve its administration and to develop further the principles of a genuine culture of service.

I am aware that one of the Ombudsman’s most frequent concerns relates to the alleged lack of transparency of the Commission, including the refusal to provide information. I am committed to further tackling such cases. However, I would like to note that in this field the Commission thoroughly examines all the inquiries addressed to it by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman often closes his inquiries with critical and further remarks because the Commission has not respected deadlines during the procedures. That is clear and follows the complaints request for access to a file. The Ombudsman points out that a third of the complaints deal with requests for information or for public access to documents.

In 2010 he closed 23 inquiries and opened 22 new ones. However, the number of complaints must be seen in perspective. In 2010 the Commission handled more than 6 000 requests for access to documents and 5 000 requests were granted. Everything is relative, but please take into account that 5 000 requests were granted. The Commission took 122 decisions on confirmatory applications, of which 22 led to a complaint to the Ombudsman. These figures show that the Commission duly respects citizens’ fundamental right of access to documents.

Regarding the recast of the regulation, the Commission submitted a proposal in 2008 which is still at first reading in Parliament. No comment, only a note: with a view to complying with the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission submitted a second proposal in March this year, and, as I can tell by his body language, the Ombudsman welcomes this move to achieve rapid compliance with the Treaty by extending the right of access to all institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the EU.

As regards the Ombudsman’s special report sent to the Parliament in 2010 and regarding a complaint on access to Commission documents – the ‘Porsche’ affair – I regret that this special report was sent shortly after the Commission had taken a final decision on the case. We are collegial and we are open to each other, so I imagine that from our side we are allowed to make that kind of remark. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that the time taken to reach that decision was excessive, even if it was due to the failure of the third party to respond to the Commission’s proposal. The picture tends to be clearer when we have all the facts than when we do not.

I would like to stress that the Commission is fully committed to sincerely cooperating with the Ombudsman and that it does not have any intention of obstructing the Ombudsman’s work in any way. I would not dare to say anything different. This is Maroš’s text and I am also completely committed to it.

Finally, the Commission – like the Iotova report – also encourages the Ombudsman to continue to promote the European Network of Ombudsmen, with a view to developing a comprehensive database and better informing EU citizens about the apportioning of responsibilities between the European Ombudsman, the national ombudsmen and Parliament’s Committee on Petitions. The Commission looks forward to the Ombudsman’s statement of public service principles, which was recently the subject of a public consultation open to national ombudsmen, colleagues and other interested parties. The Commission contributed to this public consultation by stressing that public service principles are well settled in staff regulations and in different Commission codes, such as the Commission’s Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.

The Commission will always be willing to further reinforce its culture of service and ensure the coherence of its actions in those fields which are most widely covered by the Ombudsman’s inquiries.

  Мария Неделчева, от името на групата PPE. – Най-напред бих искала да поздравя докладчика Йотова за добрия и изчерпателен доклад.

Г-н Диамандурос, Вашата функция е от първостепенна важност за засилването на доверието на гражданите в нашите институции, защото всички ние никога не трябва да губим от поглед принципа на добрата администрация и никога не трябва да приемаме успехите за даденост и да спираме да се борим, да работим все по-добре за нашите граждани.

Именно затова докладите относно годишната дейност на Европейския омбудсман са от толкова голямо значение за подобряването на работата на нашите институции в полза на европейските граждани. Бих искала да Ви обърна внимание на няколко точки.

Най-напред 2010 г. е белязана с преизбирането на г-н Диамандурос за Европейски омбудсман, с 15-годишнината на институцията, с новата визия на годишния доклад, с нова стратегия. Всичко това свидетелства за много натрупан опит и за желания да се върви напред. Бих искала да отчета намаляването на броя на жалбите в сравнение с този от 2009 г., но и запазването на тенденцията голяма част от жалбите да се отнасят до прозрачността и достъпа на информация.

Нека не забравяме значението на прозрачността. Правилото е прозрачност, а изключението - конфиденциалност. Лисабонският договор даде и друг важен инструмент в ръцете на Европейския омбудсман - Хартата на основните права на Европейския съюз стана правно обвързваща в повечето страни членки и правото на добра администрация придоби юридическа стойност. Нека Европейският омбудсман се възползва максимално от тази нова солидна юридическа база, за да върши успешно своята работа.

Доброто сътрудничество с новата Европейска служба за външна дейност и с Европейския съвет е също толкова важно. Важно е Европейският омбудсман да продължи да подкрепя дейността на Европейската мрежа на омбудсманите, да продължим със създаването на всеобхватна база данни, за да бъдат европейските граждани по-добре осведомени за разпределението на отговорностите между Европейския омбудсман, националните омбудсмани и нашата комисия по петиции, защото всички ние защитаваме интересите на европейските граждани и носим отговорност за засилване на доверието в европейските институции.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, w imieniu grupy S&D. – Panie Przewodniczący! 27 września 2010 roku obchodziliśmy 15. rocznicę istnienia instytucji Europejskiego Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich. Przez półtorej dekady Ombudsman przeprowadził ponad 3 800 dochodzeń dotyczących niewłaściwego administrowania oraz udzielił odpowiedzi na ponad 36 000 skarg indywidualnych obywateli oraz firm Unii Europejskiej czujących się ofiarami błędów lub zaniedbań ze strony instytucji lub agencji europejskich. Pragnąc podkreślić, jak ważną rolę sprawuje urząd rzecznika warto wspomnieć, że jedynie w ubiegłym roku zarejestrowanych zostało 2667 skarg. Na szczególną pochwałę zasługuje inicjatywa Ombudsmana polegająca na cyklicznym publikowaniu analiz badających działania podjęte przez instytucje unijne w następstwie zgłoszonych przez niego skarg.

Urząd rzecznika corocznie zdobywa coraz większe zaufanie obywateli, w swoim działaniu jest też im coraz bardziej przyjazny. Promocja i ulepszenia procedury składania wniosków sprawiły, iż prawie 58% skarg otrzymanych w ubiegłym roku wpłynęło za pośrednictwem internetu, co przyczyniło się do szybszego ich rozpatrzenia, zaś średni czas trwania postępowań skrócił się do niespełna 9 miesięcy, co niestety jest dalej zbyt długo dla obywatela.

Wielu skarg można byłoby uniknąć, gdyby obywatele mieli łatwiejszy dostęp do dokumentów instytucji unijnych. Przejrzystość w dziedzinie procesu podejmowania decyzji oraz odpowiedzialność instytucji Unii powinny być podstawą w kontaktach z obywatelami. Niestety ze sprawozdania wynika wyraźnie, że kwestie te dotyczyły aż 33% wszystkich postępowań w 2010 r. Z niecierpliwością czekam zatem na konkretne działania zmierzające do poprawy także tej sytuacji. Przy okazji pragnę podkreślić stałą i bardzo dobrą współpracę pomiędzy Europejskim Rzecznikiem Praw Obywatelskich i parlamentarną Komisją Petycji, w której pracuję już drugą kadencję.

Mając nadzieję, że instytucja Europejskiego Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich nie ustanie w usprawnianiu swych działań na rzecz gwarancji pewnego wykorzystania przez obywateli Unii Europejskiej przysługujących im praw, życzę kolejnych sukcesów Ombudsmanowi, którego funkcje od 2003 r. z powodzeniem piastuje profesor Nikiforos Diamandouros, którego pracę osobiście bardzo doceniam. Kończąc, pragnę pogratulować także sprawozdawczyni, pani Iotovej, świetnie wykonanej pracy.

  Edward McMillan-Scott, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I would like to join other colleagues in thanking Ms Iotova for an excellent report into what appears to be an admirable year for the Ombudsman. It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee on Petitions once again. I first served on it 27 years ago for a period. At that time there was no Ombudsman and no effective procedure for complaints into maladministration by the EU institutions, but today we can reflect not only on the fact that the Ombudsman’s office is there, is fully staffed, has a budget and has a mandate, but that its mandate has been increased by the Lisbon Treaty to include foreign and defence policy and the new External Action Service. This new scope will be a challenge for the Ombudsman, but I am sure he will meet it, as he always does, with the full cooperation of the European Parliament, and especially its Committee on Petitions.

It is important that when maladministration is alleged there is a framework within which this can be decided. I am pleased to see that the Ombudsman is promulgating a statement of public service principles which our civil servants in Parliament, the Commission and elsewhere within the EU can read and understand and follow. It is good to see, too, that the Ombudsman is using very frequently a process of conciliation before a formal procedure is begun. This is all extremely encouraging and, from my group’s point of view, we would like Mr Diamandouros to continue his excellent work and to endorse fully the report by Ms Iotova, which we adopted in committee on 13 June. We would like to thank you all for your work.

  Marek Henryk Migalski, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Rzeczniku! Pani Komisarz! Rzeczywiście pani sprawozdawczyni Iotova powiedziała, że najwięcej skarg kierowanych do rzecznika dotyczy prac Komisji Europejskiej. Jest to klasyczny przykład, kiedy jedna komisja czy organ unijny rozwiązuje problemy innego organu unijnego. Jest to niestety klasyczny przykład rozrostu biurokracji, który – według pewnych praw socjologicznych – jest nieuchronny. Pan McMillan-Scott powiedział słusznie, że pan rzecznik ma odpowiednich urzędników. Jest ich już niestety 64. Budżet Pana instytucji to jest prawie 10 mln euro. Pytanie brzmi: czy słuszna praca, którą Pan wykonuje, musi być rzeczywiście wykonywana przy takim budżecie i przy udziale tylu osób. Z powodu tych wątpliwości moja grupa wstrzyma się od głosu nad sprawozdaniem pani Iotovej.

  Margrete Auken, for Verts/ALE-Gruppen. – Hr. formand! EU-borgernes billede af EU er et stort og utilgængeligt bureaukrati, og det er svært at få det billede væk. Når vi taler om, at vi i 2013 skal have "The Year of the Citizens", er der en fair chance for, at vi bliver til grin! Vi har ellers gjort store fremskridt for at muliggøre borgernes deltagelse først og fremmest med vores ombudsmand, hvis årsberetning vi takker for, og vi behandler i dag fru Iotovas glimrende betænkning. Tak til hende og kollegerne for, at vi faktisk kan være meget stolte af denne betænkning.

Tankegangen i lovændringerne til administrationen er jo klar: EU's forvaltning skal være til for borgernes skyld. Det er dem, der skal have tillid til systemet, og de skal opleve, at det virker. Vi har sat kravene om god forvaltningsskik ind i charteret, hvor det er forpligtende for EU-institutionerne, og vi har forbedret retsgrundlaget for aktindsigt, så den i forvejen glimrende forordning 1047 kan blive endnu bedre. Problemet er bare, at vigtige dele af Kommissionen og af Rådet ikke ønsker at lege med. For dem er det stadigvæk forvaltningens opgave at beskytte magten mod borgerne. Vi har i 2008 set en ulyksalig modstand mod forbedringerne af 1041, og det bliver sandsynligvis en krig at få Kommissionen til at foreslå den lovgivning, vi har brug for, om god forvaltningsskik. Hvis den skal være sikker, skal vi have lovgivning herom. Det fremgår også af punkt 29 i betænkningen.

Det er ikke betryggende, at de fleste klager hos ombudsmanden drejer sig om Kommissionen. Og det er ikke betryggende - det bliver jeg nødt til at sige til fru kommissæren - at antallet er stigende. Kommissionen er jo centrum i EU. Det er den, der skal sørge for, at EU udvikler sig i overensstemmelse med de europæiske værdier, og det er Kommissionen, der har eneretten til at fremsætte lovforslag. På den baggrund er det alarmerende, at fremtrædende embedsmænd faktisk mener, at Kommissionen stadigvæk skal beskytte sig mod borgerne. Jeg har hørt en fremtrædende embedsmand fra DG-Miljø, som ikke engang ville give adgang til overtrædelsesprocedurerne, når sagen var lukket, fordi han mente, det kunne skade tilliden inden for systemet. Nej! Det er borgerne, der skal have tillid til os, ikke omvendt! Det er den måde, systemet skal virke på. Det her er ikke et spørgsmål om kulturer. Der er ikke en nordisk kultur for åbenhed og en sydlig kultur for korruption. Må jeg være her? Kultur for åbenhed skal vi have overalt! Vores ombudsmand er græker, og vi kan ikke sige, at de syd på ikke går ind for åbenhed.

Lad mig til sidst bede ombudsmanden være opmærksom på én ting i budgettet, som vi taler om. Hvad koster det, at ombudsmanden bor i Strasbourg - langt væk fra sit arbejde - i stedet for at bo der, hvor han arbejder? Jeg vil gerne bede ombudsmanden om at levere os klare tal, så vi kan se, hvad vi kan spare, hvis vi flyttede ombudsmanden hen i nærheden af sit arbejde.

  Νικόλαος Χουντής, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας GUE/NGL. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, συμφωνώ και στηρίζω την έκθεση της συναδέλφου, κυρίας Iotova, για τον απολογισμό του έργου του Ευρωπαίου Διαμεσολαβητή για το 2010. Έχω διαβάσει τον απολογισμό του παριστάμενου Διαμεσολαβητή, κυρίου Διαμαντούρου, έχω προσωπική γνώμη για το έργο του και νομίζω ότι έχει τελέσει έργο για το οποίο αξίζει να τον συγχαρούμε.

Πιστεύω ότι η κρίση που μαστίζει την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, και ιδιαίτερα ορισμένες χώρες, καθώς και το δημοκρατικό έλλειμμα το οποίο αυξάνεται, είναι δεδομένο ότι οδηγεί σε περισσότερες παραβιάσεις των θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων των ευρωπαίων πολιτών. Αυτό αποδεικνύεται, κατά την άποψή μου, από το γεγονός ότι αυξήθηκαν οι προσφυγές κατά της Επιτροπής. Δεν είναι μόνο ο ρόλος που έχει η Επιτροπή στο θεσμικό οικοδόμημα, είναι ότι τελευταία όλο και περισσότερο από το όργανο αυτό απορρέουν πολιτικές – και εδώ είναι ένα πρόβλημα – όπως φαίνεται και από τις αναφορές που απευθύνονται στον κύριο Διαμαντούρο, για τις οποίες δεν γνωρίζουμε εάν πρόκειται για φαινόμενα κακοδιοίκησης ή για φαινόμενα συνειδητής πολιτικής που πλήττουν βασικά δικαιώματα των πολιτών.

Νομίζω ότι πολλές φορές πρόκειται για το δεύτερο. Γι’ αυτό οι προσφυγές έχουν αυξηθεί απέναντι στην Επιτροπή που εκπροσωπεί αυτές τις συντηρητικές και, εν τέλει, αντιδημοκρατικές πολιτικές, και μπορώ να αναφέρω πολλαπλά παραδείγματα επ’ αυτού.

Εξ άλλου, το ότι έχουν μειωθεί οι προσφυγές συγκριτικά με το προηγούμενο έτος προς τον Ευρωπαίο Διαμεσολαβητή, δεν σημαίνει ότι ο κύριος Διαμαντούρος δεν κάνει καλά τη δουλειά του. Σημαίνει, κατά τη γνώμη μου, ότι και τον Ευρωπαίο Διαμεσολαβητή αγγίζει μια κρίση αξιοπιστίας, όπως όλους τους θεσμούς της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, δηλαδή απογοητευμένος ο ευρωπαίος πολίτης δεν θεωρεί σκόπιμο να απευθυνθεί, έστω, στον Ευρωπαίο διαμεσολαβητή όταν κατανοεί ότι υπάρχει ένα πρόβλημα.

Τέλος, νομίζω ότι πρέπει να στηρίξουμε περισσότερο το έργο του Ευρωπαίου Διαμεσολαβητή, ιδιαίτερα δε, να ξεκινήσει μια ενημέρωση για το ρόλο του και τις δυνατότητες που έχει ο ευρωπαίος πολίτης όταν προσφεύγει στον Ευρωπαίο Διαμεσολαβητή, γιατί από τη γεωγραφική κατανομή των αναφορών φαίνεται ότι αρκετές χώρες έχουν μικρή αναλογία προσφυγών.

  Νικόλαος Σαλαβράκος, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας EFD. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα και εγώ με τη σειρά μου να σχολιάσω θετικά τον απολογισμό του Ευρωπαίου Διαμεσολαβητή για το εξαιρετικό έργο το οποίο έκανε για το 2010 και ταυτόχρονα την έκθεση της κυρίας Iotova η οποία περιέχει επαρκή στοιχεία.

Στην αρχαία Ρώμη υπήρχε ένας ρήτορας ο οποίος έλεγε: «Carthago delenda est». Ήθελε πάντα να τελειώνει τους λόγους του με αυτή τη φράση. Και η Καρχηδόνα έπεσε και κατεστράφη. Ποια είναι η σύγχρονη Καρχηδόνα; Η σύγχρονη Καρχηδόνα είναι η συμπεριφορά της διοίκησης χωρίς σεβασμό προς τους πολίτες και η διαφθορά. Και ως προς μεν τη διαφθορά δεν μπορείτε εσείς, κύριε Διαμαντούρο, να επέμβετε θεσμικά. Όμως, για την εμπέδωση του πνεύματος σεβασμού των πολιτών, στη διοίκηση μπορείτε να επέμβετε σε μεγάλο βαθμό.

Το 2010, όπως προκύπτει από τα στατιστικά στοιχεία της έκθεσης που κρίνεται σήμερα, λάβατε 2.667 καταγγελίες από πολίτες, εταιρίες και ενώσεις και μη κυβερνητικές οργανώσεις, κατοίκους ή εδρεύοντες στο χώρο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Παρά τη μείωση που παρατηρήθηκε σε σύγκριση με το 2009, προσωπικά θεωρώ ότι ο θεσμός έχει εμπεδωθεί στη συνείδηση των ευρωπαίων πολιτών, οι οποίοι όμως δεν έχουν προσδιορίσει, απ’ ό,τι αντιλαμβάνομαι, το εύρος της δικαιοδοσίας του Διαμεσολαβητή και καταφεύγουν σε αυτόν για υποθέσεις εκτός ορίων της αρμοδιότητάς του.

Βεβαίως αντιλαμβάνομαι ότι υπάρχουν περιπτώσεις που οι πολίτες δεν μπορούν να οριοθετήσουν την έννοια της αρχής της επικουρικότητας η οποία διακατέχει τα νομικά στοιχεία της λειτουργίας της Ένωσης. Ακόμη όμως και στις περιπτώσεις που απευθύνονται προς το Διαμεσολαβητή εκτός των πλαισίων, θεωρώ ότι γίνεται σαφές ότι αναγνωρίζουν σ’ αυτόν ένα θεσμό, ένα καταφύγιο αναζήτησης δικαιοσύνης. Και αυτό είναι το σημαντικότερο.

Έτσι, κύριε Διαμαντούρο, από τις πιο πάνω αναφορές, από ό,τι είδα στατιστικά, μόνο το 27%, δηλαδή οι 744 περιπτώσεις ενέπιπταν στις αρμοδιότητές σας. Όμως το αυξημένο ποσοστό 63% των ατόμων που προσέφυγαν σε εσάς, αυτό είναι που σας δίνει τη μεγαλύτερη ευθύνη. Όλοι αποβλέπουν στο θεσμό. Και θεωρώ ότι, όπως λειτουργείτε το θεσμό θα φέρετε σε πέρας την αποκατάσταση της εμπιστοσύνης των πολιτών της Ευρώπης, σε ένα μοντέλο και σε μια Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, της οποίας η αξιοπιστία σήμερα, λόγω της οικονομικής κρίσης, δημιουργεί τεράστια ανασφάλεια.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). - Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Frau Kommissarin, sehr geehrter Herr Diamandouros, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Der Jahresbericht 2010 wurde uns vorgelegt und zeigt sehr klar, dass die Beschwerden über Verwaltungsmissstände und -schwächen in den EU-Institutionen gegenüber dem Jahr 2009 weniger wurden – sie gingen von 3 098 auf 2 667 zurück. Festzuhalten ist, dass Sie, Herr Diamandouros, Untersuchungen abschließen konnten, aber auch initiierten.

Das häufigste Problem war im vergangen Jahr der Zugang der Öffentlichkeit zu Dokumenten – der Informationszugang ist an sich schon im AEUV in Artikel 15 Absatz 3 und in Artikel 42 der Grundrechtecharta geregelt. Die Anzahl der Beschwerden zeigt unmissverständlich auf, dass der entsprechende Rechtsrahmen kontinuierlich geprüft und überarbeitet werden muss. Gleichzeitig möchte ich aber auch von den Institutionen Eigenverantwortung im Sinne der Transparenzinitiative, der sie sich verpflichtet haben, einfordern.

Abschließend möchte ich mich bei Ihnen, Herr Diamandouros, für ein weiteres Jahr, in dem Sie erneut beachtliche Arbeit geleistet haben, bedanken. Für die kommenden Jahre hoffe ich auf eine weiterhin gute Zusammenarbeit mit Ihnen.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'ufficio del Mediatore svolge un'importantissima funzione sociopolitica, anche se mi rendo conto che questo non lo esonera dal rispondere alle legittime domande dei colleghi sull'imponenza del bilancio ma, anzi, sottolinea ancor di più la produttività del suo impegno.

L'ufficio del Mediatore, insieme a SOLVIT e alla commissione per le petizioni, costituisce la rete europea di tutela del diritto di cittadinanza. In realtà, attraverso le diverse procedure, spiegate in maniera molto positiva all'interno della risoluzione, il Mediatore cerca di dare pienezza a quel principio fondamentale di democrazia che è la rappresentanza, colmando le lacune nella comunicazione, sbiadendo le opacità e rendendo più trasparente il sistema. In questa relazione relativa all'anno 2010 osserviamo, come hanno sottolineato i colleghi, una diminuzione complessiva del numero delle domande – il che non avvilisce il senso di partecipazione civica dei cittadini – ma nel contempo un aumento delle denunce fatte contro la Commissione esecutiva.

Sono contenta dell'approccio positivo del Commissario Kroes e dei contenuti del suo intervento, perché ritengo che la Commissione debba trarre, da questo dibattito di oggi e dal lavoro che la rete di tutela dei cittadini svolge, delle indicazioni di percorso. Sono convinta della buona fede, dell'impegno e della buona volontà dimostrati dal Commissario Kroes e vorrei quindi che da questo si traesse un messaggio chiaro: la Commissione eccede in strumenti di burocrazia ed eccede in sovrastrutture: forse qualcuno confonde l'autorevolezza della funzione con l'autoritarismo ciò compromette il sano rapporto con i cittadini. Ringrazio quindi il Mediatore per il lavoro svolto, il Commissario e la relatrice Iotova per l'eccezionale lavoro svolto.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). - Vážený pán Diamandouros, vy ste boli Európskym parlamentom na plenárnej schôdzi 20. januára 2010 znovuzvolený, čo je samotným faktom, ktorý svedčí o tom, že dôvera vo vašu prácu, aj vo váš úrad v Európskom parlamente je a že si svoju prácu zastávate dobre. S radosťou môžeme skonštatovať, že vaša kvalitná práca pokračovala aj po rozšírení vášho mandátu ombudsmana Lisabonskou zmluvou a svojich nových úloh ste sa zhostili výborným spôsobom. Chcela by som na tomto mieste spomenúť vašu definíciu nesprávneho úradného postupu, ktorú schválil Európsky parlament a neskôr aj Európska komisia. Znie takto: „K nesprávnemu úradnému postupu dochádza vtedy, keď verejnoprávna inštitúcia nekoná v súlade s pravidlom alebo zásadou, ktorá je pre ňu záväzná“. Pre naše inštitúcie to znamená dodržiavať zásady právneho štátu, dobrej správy vecí verejných a základné práva. Takisto charta základných práv v článku 41 zahŕňa právo na dobrú správu ako základné právo občanov Európskej únie a je záväzná pre každú administratívnu inštitúciu Európskej únie.

V roku 2010 bol nesprávny úradný postup odhalený v 12 % uzavretých prípadov. Sťažovateľovi alebo sťažovateľom zabezpečili pozitívny výsledok v siedmich prípadoch tým, že navrhol odporúčania, ktoré boli akceptované. V roku 2010 ste tiež vydali šestnásť nových návrhov odporúčaní. Vo výročnej správe sa osobitná pozornosť venuje stratégii na aktuálne funkčné obdobie. Jedná sa v nej predovšetkým o rozšírenie a prehĺbenie kontaktov s inštitúciami Európskej únie a občianskou spoločnosťou. Toto je z hľadiska budúcnosti Európskej únie jedna z kľúčových úloh, a preto vám budeme, pán ombudsman, držať palce. Pre mnohých občanov je práve váš úrad (a vy osobne) akási posledná nádej v tom, že ich prípady budú vyriešené. Mohli by sme vám to závidieť, ale my vám to úprimne prajeme a dúfame, že občanom členských štátov Európskej únie budete aj v budúcnosti svojou kvalitnou prácou pomáhať.

  Jacek Olgierd Kurski (ECR). - Panie Przewodniczący! Na wstępie chciałbym serdecznie pogratulować panu Nikiforosowi oraz całemu zespołowi tworzącemu Biuro Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich udanego roku 2010. Statystyki mówią same za siebie: coraz więcej rozpoznanych spraw, coraz mniej uwag krytycznych i krótszy czas wydawania decyzji – 9 miesięcy zamiast 13, czyli skrócenie o prawie ⅓. Sukces ten winien być drogowskazem dla unijnej administracji. Czas wydawania decyzji oraz odpowiedzi na realne wyzwania jest zbyt długi, co powoduje zwiększenie kosztów oraz osłabia konkurencyjność. W czasach kryzysu nie możemy sobie pozwolić na takie działania, dlatego musimy przejść do pewnej informatyzacji unijnej administracji. Potrzeby jej wprowadzenia postulował jeszcze Jacob Söderman, pełniący funkcję rzecznika do 2003 roku.

Postuluję również rozszerzenie kompetencji Rzecznika m.in. o wolność prasy i mediów w Europie lub stworzenie w ramach jego biura osobnej, specjalnej komórki, która zajmowałaby się wyłącznie tą kwestią. Wiem, że podobny projekt został kiedyś przedstawiony przez kolegów z ALDE. Dziś po doświadczeniach w Polsce, gdzie aktualny rząd próbuje ograniczać wolność prawicowych mediów, w pełni go popieram.

  Tatjana Ždanoka (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, I have some remarks to make, in my one minute, to the Ombudsman and the Commissioner.

First, in 2010 most of the complaints to the Ombudsman referred to the lack of transparency in the EU administration. I want to urge the Council, which is absent today, and the Commission to use secrecy as an exception and not as a rule. Very often, after reading documents in the so-called ‘secret room’ of the European Parliament, as a Member of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, I pose myself the rhetorical question of what the need is for confidentiality for one document or another.

Second, we also know that the biggest proportion of enquiries in 2010 related to the European Commission and share completely the Ombudsman’s concerns about the high number of unsatisfactory replies by the Commission to his critical remarks. Our own experience in the Committee on Petitions, when dealing with certain unsatisfactory replies from the Commission, shows that his enquiries are not poorly reasoned.

We hope that the further work by the Ombudsman will impact positively on the Union’s administrative culture. Finally, I too would like to thank Ms Iotova for her report.

  Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL). - Voorzitter, graag wil ik de heer Diamandouros complimenteren met zijn voortreffelijke werk. Transparantie is helaas nog steeds een belangrijke grond voor klachten. Als Europees Parlement kunnen we daarover meepraten. Samen met gelijkgezinde Europarlementariërs uit alle grote fracties heb ik een intensieve dialoog met de Commissie gevoerd over de ondoorzichtigheid van de samenstelling en werkwijze van haar deskundigengroepen. Noch tijdens een plenair debat, noch per brief kregen we antwoord op onze vragen. Uiteindelijk hebben we gisteren de betreffende begrotingspost moeten blokkeren totdat de Commissie tegemoetkomt aan onze wensen.

Toegang tot documenten is een vergelijkbaar geval. We stuiten op een muur van verzet. De Commissie houdt vast aan haar voorstellen om in feite minder toegang tot documenten te geven dan wat de bestaande regels vastleggen. Het is dan ook geen verrassing dat de ombudsman vorig jaar een speciaal verslag over juist dit onderwerp aan het Parlement stuurde. Aanleiding was een klacht over de weigering van de Commissie om inzage te geven in brieven van Porsche aan voormalig commissaris Verheugen over CO2-emissies van auto's. Een terechte vraag, omdat die brieven konden laten zien in hoeverre er sprake was van belangenverstrengeling tussen de commissaris en de auto-industrie.

Het is buitengewoon kwalijk dat de Commissie in dit geval op geen enkele manier tegemoetkwam aan de legitieme eisen van de ombudsman. Door koudwatervrees als het gaat om openbaarheid, creëert de Commissie ruimte voor argwaan bij dit Parlement en de burger. Ik wens de ombudsman veel moed en doorzettingsvermogen toe bij zijn verdere werkzaamheden.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Mr President, there is much to praise in the clear and easily comprehensible report of the Ombudsman. The different categories of alleged maladministration were defined precisely and the criteria for admissibility were explained clearly. However, Greek ombudsmen should beware eurosceptics bearing compliments.

The word ‘ombudsman’, I am reliably told, means ‘grievance man’. I am afraid it is the only Swedish word I know. There are many grievances about the European Union among British nationals, but they have little to do with time limits, incorrect applications of procedural rules, requests for information or even that most heinous of all offences, discrimination. They concern loss of sovereignty, net contributions to the budget, embrace of globalism, prescriptive social liberalism and the absence of referendums. I am sure that these would all fail the admissibility criteria, but they are real grievances nevertheless.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, le Médiateur européen procède avec brio à des enquêtes sur des plaintes dirigées contre les institutions et organes de l'Union européenne. Cet instrument est à la fois nécessaire, pour faciliter la libre circulation, celle de nos entreprises et de nos citoyens, mais il est également une garantie formidable, notamment face aux détracteurs de l'Union, qui disent trop souvent qu'elle n'est qu'une machine bureaucratique sans contrôle. C'est clairement un non-sens. L'Europe fait un vrai travail sur elle-même grâce au Médiateur européen, notamment.

Je voudrais néanmoins relayer un constat, que je regrette fortement, dans lequel la Commission est sous le feu des critiques. Il y a d'abord les chiffres: la proportion des enquêtes ouvertes par le Médiateur concernant la Commission européenne est de 65 % et non de 12 %.

Il y a aussi les acteurs: de nombreuses entreprises viennent nous voir pour expliquer leur incompréhension face à une Commission européenne qui reste sourde à leurs demandes, notamment pour l'accès aux documents ou pour la transparence dans la prise de décision. Peu de monde s'y retrouve.

Je ferai part enfin de mon expérience personnelle: je vous avoue que j'ai parfois été choqué par les réactions de certains services de la Commission européenne présents en commission des pétitions. Vous le savez, la Commission nous donne sa position sur les pétitions, position que nous prenons toujours en compte et qui est nécessaire. Mais il arrive occasionnellement de voir des représentants de la Commission qui refusent de répondre aux questions d'un député ou qui se réfugient derrière une langue de bois, presque aussi bien que des politiciens, et ce devant des citoyens plaidant leur cause.

Je voulais donc vous rappeler que l'Europe doit avoir un visage humain, que derrière les problèmes administratifs que relève et résout le Médiateur se trouvent des Européens soulagés d'être écoutés mais déçus par ces comportements, des citoyens marqués négativement par leur affrontement avec les institutions, ce qui risque de créer un sentiment de révolte, d'incompréhension et à terme, peut-être, d'euroscepticisme.

Je souhaite de tout cœur que ces critiques et celles du Médiateur contre les institutions en général soient entendues.

  Метин Казак (ALDE). - Бих искал и аз да поздравя г-жа Йотова за задълбочената работа по този доклад. Той проследява дейността на г-н Диамандурос след преизбирането му през 2010 г. и особено след влизането в сила на Договора от Лисабон, който разшири мандата на Европейския омбудсман.

От доклада става ясно, че европейските граждани все повече осъзнават тяхното основно право на добра администрация, гарантирано в Хартата на основните права. Аз също препоръчах на Европейския омбудсман по повод 15-годишнината от създаването на институцията да започне нова стратегия до 2014 г., която да се фокусира върху насърчаване на културата на обслужване в администрацията.

Радвам се да отбележа, че новите страни членки са измежду първите 10 подали жалби през 2010 г., България е на седмо място, което ясно говори, че българските граждани търсят защита на човешките си права. Смятам, че Европейският омбудсман трябва да подкрепя националните омбудсмани от новоприетите страни членки за засилване на техния капацитет. Разбира се и проблемът за достъп до информация е основен и ключов и европейските институции, и най-вече Комисията, следва да прилагат принципите на добро управление.

  Oldřich Vlasák (ECR). - Vážený pane předsedo, pane ombudsmane, když jsem si četl svůj loňský projev na toto téma, říkal jsem si, že má slova jsou stále aktuální. Účelem vašeho orgánu je levněji a pro občany přístupnější formou řešit případy bezpráví činěné evropskou byrokracií. Případy, které by bylo možno řešit i řádnými opravnými prostředky nebo soudním přezkumem. Vaše řešení problému stěžovatele by proto mělo být zásadně levnější, rychlejší a pružnější než řešení soudní.

Ve vaší zprávě za rok 2010 jsem se dočetl, že jste loni měl rozpočet ve výši 9,3 milionu EUR s tím, že jste registroval 2 667 případů. To činí v průměru 3 500 EUR na případ. Pro srovnání, Evropský soud pro lidská práva loni registroval 61 300 případů, přičemž měl rozpočet 58,4 milionu EUR. To v přepočtu činí 953 EUR na případ. Vím, že každé porovnání je zjednodušující. Nicméně bych vás chtěl požádat o zamyšlení a vysvětlení, proč jste o tolik dražší, než soudní instituce.

  Ágnes Hankiss (PPE). - Válságokkal küzdő világunkban aligha lehet eléggé hangsúlyozni – ahogy ezt itt már sokan megtettük ma – az átláthatóság fontosságát. Nyilván nem véletlen, hogy az ombudsmani jelentésnek és Jotova asszony jelentésének is központi eleme az átláthatóság kérdése, amely örömteli és üdvözlendő az állampolgároknak. Ahhoz, hogy megbirkózzanak a válsággal, nagyon fontos, hogy értsék, hogy körülöttük mi miért történik, és hogy az intézményi döntések hátterében milyen gondolatok állnak.

Úgy hiszem, hogy az ombudsmani küldetés egyik legfontosabb eleme az, hogy soha ne legyen egyoldalú, más szóval hogy egyensúlyt teremtsen az átláthatósághoz fűződő állampolgári igény, és ugyanakkor más esetekben a titkosításhoz fűződő közösségi érdek között.

Miért mondom ezt? Azért, mert bizonyos szempontból új helyzetet teremt, hogy a Külügyi Szolgálat megalakulásával az európai biztonság- és védelempolitika kérdései is bekerültek az ombudsman látókörébe, és ez az a terület, ahol ugye nagyon sok esetben az információkhoz való hozzáférés jogos igényei mellett előfordulnak olyan akciók is, amelyeket én inkább a politikai marketing körébe sorolnék, és amelyek adott esetben veszélyezthetik biztonságunkat.

Éppen ezért rendkívül fontos, hogy a titkosításnak megalkossuk végre a világos normáit, ezt az emberek felé nyilvánvalóvá tegyük, mert azt hiszem, hogy az ombudsman is akkor tud kellő határozottsággal és erkölcsi súllyal adott esetben állást foglalni a titkosítás mellett – ahogy erre volt már példa –, hogyha a normák világosak.

Engedjék meg, hogy megemlítsem azt is, hogy az állampolgárok közé besorolhatjuk magunkat képviselőket is. Jómagam például biztonságpolitikai munkám során nemegyszer ütközöm olyan helyzetekbe, hogy nagyon fontos tanácsi dokumentumokat titkossá minősítenek, és nem tudom elolvasni. Nagyon jó volna világosan látni ennek az okait, erre szeretném buzdítani ombudsman urat.

Engedjék meg, hogy a jelentésből vett mondattal fejezzem be, amely így hangzik: „A nyitottság a cél, és a titkosítás a kivétel.”

  Nessa Childers (S&D). - Mr President, I should also like to thank the rapporteur. Scrutiny, transparency and freedom of speech are all central tenets of our democratic process. However, freedom of speech is only effective if somebody is there to listen. The European Ombudsman exists to ensure that our citizens are listened to and last year performed that job competently, receiving 2 667 complaints from across Europe.

It is vital that this process be built upon and that it continues. There is, though, much still to be done in the field of transparency in the EU. Lobbying in the European institutions and indeed in many Member States can still sometimes resemble the Wild West. Members should firstly be aware of this anomaly and secondly should work to improve the transparency of our workplace in order to provide an example to other democratic institutions across the EU.

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Rzeczniku! To bardzo przyjemnie słyszeć tyle pochwał. Myślę, że są one zasłużone, Panie Rzeczniku. Chciałabym tylko przedstawić 2-3 uwagi do samej pracy. Wydaje się, że skoro liczba skarg zaczyna w tej chwili spadać, to może warto poświęcić więcej czasu na tworzenie samych procedur, samego systemu komunikacji, przepływu informacji, dostępu obywateli do dokumentów. Warto też zastanowić się, skąd bierze się ten spadek liczby skarg, czy z tego, że instytucje unijne coraz lepiej pracują, czy może ludzie ze swojej strony mają poczucie braku reaktywności instytucji.

Głosowałam na Pana, popierałam Pana. Myślę, że był to bardzo dobry wybór. Pomyślmy jednak, co w tej chwili można jeszcze zrobić, żeby stworzyć lepszy przepływ informacji, lepszy kontakt. Nie tylko rozwiązujmy skargi, ale budujmy lepszy system. Wiem, że Pan już to robi i jest to ważne. Kolega z ECR, pan Migalski, powiedział, że jego grupa wstrzyma się od głosu w głosowaniu nad Pana sprawozdaniem, bo taki ma Pan budżet, tyle osób, itd. Myślę, że trzeba Pana poprzeć, ale jednocześnie oczekiwać takich działań, które nie tylko rozwiązywałyby sprawy indywidualne, ale ustanawiały pewne bardziej systemowe.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). - Arvoisa puhemies, päätöksenteon ja hallinnon avoimuus ovat yksi kansanvallan perusedellytyksiä. Huono ja välinpitämätön hallinto heikentävät kansalaisten uskoa koko Euroopan unioniin.

Euroopan oikeusasiamiehen tehtävä on osoittautunut kuluneiden 16 vuoden aikana erittäin tarpeelliseksi. Mahdollisuus valittaa väärästä hallintopäätöksestä tai vaikkapa virkamiehen ylimielisestä tai väärästä kohtelusta on myös ennaltaehkäisevää ja sen on tärkeää. Valitettavasti Euroopan unioni ei ole vielä saanut aikaan hyvän hallinnon lakia, siinä asiassa täytyy kiirehtiä.

Haluaisin kiittää Euroopan oikeusasiamiestä siitä, että valitusten käsittelyaika on lyhentynyt, tässä ovat tehneet paljon työtä oikeusasiamies sekä koko hänen erinomainen toimistonsa. Haluan myös kiittää siitä, että oikeusasiamies on toiminut sen eteen, että Euroopan unionissa avoimuus lisääntyisi. Tässä asiassa meillä on paljon tehtävää, Euroopan unioni etenee etanan lailla.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D). - Mr President, I welcome the continued efforts made by the Ombudsman to improve transparency and access to information within the European institutions. The reduction in critical remarks delivered in the Ombudsman’s report from 55 in 2007 to 33 in 2010 can be interpreted as an enhancement of transparency within the European institutions.

Secondly, we need to establish a web portal for the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions, similar to that of the European Ombudsman’s Office. Such a web portal is of the utmost importance to the committee if we are to increase the amount of admissible applications by our citizens. This would enhance Parliament’s responsiveness to citizens’ complaints with regard to maladministration, as well as their trust in the laws that we make and in their proper implementation.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). - Încep şi eu prin a saluta redactarea acestui raport după 15 ani de la crearea instituţiei Ombudsmanului European.

Prin contactul permanent cu petiţionarii s-a adaptat cerinţelor actuale - amintesc aici scăderea timpului necesar soluţionării unei plângeri, precum şi posibilitatea sesizării din oficiu a Ombudsmanului.

Consider că acest mecanism a îmbunătăţit gradul de transparenţă al funcţionării Uniunii Europene. Astfel, cetăţenii pot contesta acum problemele existente în administraţie la nivel european. Din păcate, birocraţia a avut un impact negativ în unele situaţii. Doresc să amintesc aici refuzul Comisiei Europene de a furniza informaţii complete în cadrul procedurilor administrative desfăşurate de Ombudsman. Chiar eu am fost raportor din umbră pe un asemenea caz. Regulamentul 1049 din 2001 privind accesul la documente nu este întotdeauna respectat de către instituţii. În acest mod se agravează deficitul democratic de care suferă.

De aceea, consider că trebuie încurajată cooperarea Ombudsmanului cu întregul sistem instituţional european, inclusiv cu agenţiile specializate. Scăderea numărului de plângeri adresate Ombudsmanului în 2010 indică necesitatea popularizării mai intense a funcţionării sale în rândul cetăţenilor. De aceea, susţin prezentarea raportului de activitate anual într-un cadru extins, cu implicarea celorlalte instituţii europene, dar şi a publicului.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). - Transparenţa, accesul la informaţii şi respectarea drepturilor cetăţenilor europeni sunt esenţiale pentru încrederea între cetăţeni şi instituţii. Atunci când Ombudsmanul îşi prezintă raportul anual în faţa Comisiei pentru petiţii, ar trebui invitaţi şi reprezentanţi ai Comisiei, ai administraţiei, ai Parlamentului European, ai Consiliului şi ai altor instituţii, pentru a participa la discuţii.

Reclamaţiile primite de Ombudsman în 2010 se împart în şapte categorii: transparenţa - 107 plângeri, rolul Comisiei de gardian al tratatelor - 51, elemente instituţionale - 46, regulamentele privind personalul şi administraţia - 39, proceduri de selecţie a personalului - 39, execuţia contractelor - 24, acordarea de granturi şi licitaţii - 20. Cele mai multe plângeri au venit din Spania, Germania şi Polonia. 65 % dintre anchetele deschise de Ombudsman în 2010 au vizat Comisia Europeană şi 10 % au vizat Oficiul pentru Selecţia Personalului. O atenţie deosebită trebuie acordată EPSO, deoarece la aceste competiţii participă zeci de mii de candidaţi.

Solicităm Comisiei şi celorlalte instituţii responsabile să amelioreze situaţia actuală în cel mai scurt timp.

  Heinz K. Becker (PPE). - Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Herr Bürgerbeauftragter Diamandouros, sehr geehrte Frau Kommissarin, sehr geehrte Mitglieder des Petitionsausschusses des Europäischen Parlaments! Danke für diesen informativen Bericht der für die Bürger Europas eingerichteten Institution. Die Bilanz der Sachverhalte zu den Missständen bei der Tätigkeit der Organe der EU ist in Zahlen ein Beweis, wie wichtig die Arbeit des Bürgerbeauftragten ist.

Die im Bericht angeführten Analysen, durch die mehr Transparenz, Verbesserungen, Beschleunigungen und auch eine Änderung des oft autoritätsbewussten Verhaltens in vielen Teilen der Verwaltung der Kommission gefördert werden, sprechen für sich.

Ich will aber auf einen Aspekt des Berichts eingehen, der prinzipiellere Bedeutung hat als es auf den ersten Blick zu sehen ist. Es ist der Rückgang der Beschwerden um fast 15 % von 2009 auf 2010 – eine positive Zahl, die aber die berechtigte Frage aufwirft, ob unsere nationalen Regierungen und Institutionen alles getan haben und tun, damit unsere Bürger in ganz Europa über diese Institution und auch über den direkten Weg zum Petitionsausschuss überhaupt ausreichend Bescheid wissen. Ich melde hier Zweifel am Willen unserer Mitgliedstaaten an.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). - Dėkoju pranešėjai I. Iotovai ir Ombudsmenui už metinį pranešimą ir atliktą darbą informuojant Europos Sąjungos piliečius apie jiems prieinamas galimybes teikti skundus dėl netinkamo Europos Sąjungos administravimo ir skatinti piliečius naudotis savo teisėmis. Europos Ombudsmeno metiniame pranešime itin daug dėmesio skiriama naujajai strategijai, kurią Ombudsmenas parengė savo 2009-2014 m. kadencijai. Ypač vertinu Ombudsmeno pastangas supaprastinti ir palengvinti procedūras, kad būtų galima kuo greičiau išnagrinėti skundus, taip pat glaudžiau bendradarbiauti ir laiku teikti suinteresuotiems subjektams ir visuomenei naudingą informaciją bei gerinti institucijų administravimo praktiką. Kaip matau iš ataskaitos, 2010 metais daugelių skundų atvejais pavyko draugiškai susitarti ir tai dar kartą parodo Ombudsmeno veiksmingumą ir tinkamą bendradarbiavimą su kitomis institucijomis. Pritariu tam, kad siekdamas informuoti visuomenę ir užtikrinti, jog institucijos pasimokytų iš savo klaidų Ombudsmenas kiekvienais metais savo interneto svetainėje skelbia tyrimą apie tolesnius veiksmus, kurių ėmėsi institucijos, reaguodamos į jo pateiktas pastabas.

  Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR). - Panie Przewodniczący! W zeszłym roku obecny Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich został wybrany na kolejną kadencję i będzie piastował swoją funkcję do 2014 roku. Niedługo po wyborze zaprezentował nową strategię działania na najbliższe lata, w której między innymi postulował wzmocnienie dialogu z organizacjami społecznymi oraz z osobami składającymi skargi, polepszenie kultury funkcjonowania unijnej administracji oraz bliższe kontakty z rzecznikami praw obywatelskich z państw członkowskich Unii Europejskiej. Wszystkie trzy cele, które pan Diamandouros sobie postawił, zasługują na uznanie i pokazują, że podchodzi on poważnie do swoich obowiązków. Podobnie należy ocenić nowy system komunikacji z obywatelami, między innymi interaktywny internetowy przewodnik po mechanizmach ochrony podstawowych praw obywateli Unii Europejskiej. Jest on dostępny w 23 językach urzędowych. W 2010 roku skorzystało z niego z powodzeniem już ponad 20 tysięcy osób.

Najlepszym dowodem na skuteczność tego rozwiązania jest spadek liczby skarg, które wpłynęły do rzecznika w zeszłym roku, w porównaniu z 2009 rokiem. W potocznym mniemaniu unijna administracja kojarzy się obywatelom z zagmatwaną, skomplikowaną i biurokratyczną machiną, pełną niezrozumiałych procedur i zamkniętą na obywateli. Cieszę się, że dzięki pracy Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich część z nich może się przekonać, że wcale tak nie musi być.

(Mówca zgodził się odpowiedzieć na pytanie zadane zgodnie z regułą niebieskiej kartki na mocy art. 149 ust. 8 Regulaminu)

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE). - Mam pytanie do pana Poręby. Skoro tak dobrze Pan ocenił pracę Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich, z czym się bardzo zgadzam, to chcę się dowiedzieć, dlaczego kolega Migalski z ECR, pana partii, powiedział, że ECR wstrzyma się w głosowaniu nad sprawozdaniem, że jest za dużo pieniędzy, za dużo ludzi i w sumie, jak rozumiem, nie ocenia tak pozytywnie dzisiejszego wystąpienia?

  Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR). - Chciałbym odpowiedzieć pani poseł, że w grupie ECR jest w tej sprawie pewna różnica poglądów. Zapewniam panią, że ta różnica poglądów znajdzie wyraz dzisiaj w głosowaniu finalnym na sesji plenarnej.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Dołączam się do gratulacji dla Europejskiego Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich i jego współpracowników. Dane z 2009 r. wskazują spadek liczby skarg, a ponadto 58% – jak już tu było mówione – zostało złożonych za pośrednictwem internetu, co jest optymistyczne. Jest to odzwierciedlenie sukcesu komunikacyjnego tej instytucji. Interaktywny przewodnik, o którym też tutaj mówiono, zamieszczony na stronie internetowej, powinien zainspirować Komisję Petycji Parlamentu Europejskiego do stworzenia podobnego narzędzia. Niepokojące są jednak dane mówiące, że aż 65% wszystkich skarg złożonych zostało na Komisję Europejską oraz że 33% wszczętych postępowań dotyczy naruszenia zasady przejrzystości, zwłaszcza dostępu do dokumentów.

Ta stosunkowo młoda instytucja Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich w sposób konstruktywny czerpie ze swojego doświadczenia i przyczynia się do promowania dobrych praktyk administracyjnych na poziomie europejskim.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). - Mr President, we all benefit from having somebody looking over our shoulder and making sure we perform appropriately. In this regard, the Ombudsman is doing a very good job in holding the Commission and the other institutions to account, particularly when citizens have complaints.

When you consider that there are 500 million citizens in the European Union, the number of complaints are few. Whether this is because they have nothing to complain about or are not aware of their rights is a very debatable point. However, the Ombudsman does seem to be doing a good job with those that discover his office, and his desire to create a culture of service is entirely appropriate.

I want to conclude by asking one question. He had to make a special report to Parliament regarding the failure of the Commission to respond to findings; it took them 15 months, when the time limit was three months. Is he aware of anybody within the Commission being held to account for this and of penalties being imposed as a result?

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). - Mr President, I welcome the Ombudsman’s presence here; we have had good exchanges in the past and, while I do not serve on the Petitions Committee now, I keep an eye on his work. Mr Diamandouros, I think it is important to say – because it is in the report – that while only 27% of complaints were appropriate to your office, you did actually deal with all of the complaints. You did not leave people without some form of redress, but redirected them where it was more appropriate.

I think that is important; it is also true to say that I suspect it is only the best informed and best motivated who actually go to the Ombudsman with their complaint. There are many others who, when they fail to get a response from the Commission, do nothing at all.

You will be dealing with a complaint from an Irish constituent of mine in your 2011 report. In that case you found that the Commission had failed to respond; you acted very swiftly, and we have had a response. I wonder, when there is alleged maladministration, is it the case that the Commission just ignores emails and hopes that people will go away? If so, it is entirely wrong.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). - Chcel by som vo svojom vystúpení oceniť prácu úradu európskeho ombudsmana. Skutočnosť, že sa na úrad ombudsmana obrátilo so sťažnosťou v roku 2010 viac ako 2 500 občanov, spoločností, združení, svedčí o tom, že občania a organizácie si zvykli túto európsku inštitúciu využívať. Samozrejme, že nie všetky podania, s ktorými sa občania obracajú na európskeho ombudsmana, patria do kompetencie jeho úradu. Napriek tomu predložená správa potvrdzuje opodstatnenosť tejto inštitúcie, najmä vo vzťahu ku korektnému a profesionálnemu posudzovaniu sťažností občanov na konanie príslušných európskych inštitúcií. Zrýchlenie konania pri posudzovaní sťažností oproti predchádzajúcemu roku svedčí o zlepšení a zefektívnení práce úradu, a to je, myslím si, potvrdením dobrého riadenia tohto úradu. Do budúcnosti by bolo možné byť ešte aj konštruktívnejší v tom, že by úrad ombudsmana vypracúval odporúčania pre európske inštitúcie, ktoré by im pomohli vyhnúť sa často opakovaným pochybeniam pri práci.

  Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Rzeczniku! Obserwowałam Pana działalność w poprzedniej kadencji. Już wtedy darzyłam Pana ogromnym szacunkiem, widząc Pana w akcji również w niezwykle trudnych sytuacjach. Obserwuję teraz z radością, że coraz więcej obywateli rozpoznaje i urząd, i osobę. Oznacza to, że komunikacja z obywatelami systematycznie się poprawia. Oby tak dalej było. Oby coraz więcej europejskich obywateli zdawało sobie sprawę, do kogo może się udać ze swoim problemem. Nie zgadzam się kompletnie z pomysłami obcinania w jakikolwiek sposób finansowania urzędu Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich, ponieważ zatrudnia on najlepszych fachowców. Zespół ten nie jest za duży, ale za mały. Mogłoby być załatwionych jeszcze więcej spraw, gdyby na tym poziomie było jeszcze więcej fachowców u Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich. Poza tym dzięki wysokiemu poziomowi załatwiania spraw, dzięki Pana pracy poziom świadomości praw w stosunku do funkcjonowania instytucji i kultura prawna w Unii Europejskiej osiągają coraz wyższy poziom. Dziękuję i gratuluję Panu!

  Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, I really appreciate all the interventions. I would like to ask you a favour, Mr President. Could you pass to two Members of this Parliament my answers, as they have left the room? One is Mr Chountis, who mentioned that the Commission has an old-fashioned view on democracy. I do not buy that, and I think that the opposite is true. Certainly, talking about my colleague Maroš Šefčovič, he is very active and he is in close cooperation with the Ombudsman, so no old-fashioned views at all.

I am not saying that we cannot just do more, but that is at stake. I really agree with Ms Mazzoni, who made a statement that is closer to reality, talking about good faith and goodwill. The other issue that is quite interesting: Mr Migalski made a remark about freedom of the media, and I have good news for him. Just ten days ago I set up a high-level group for the freedom of the media and pluralism and asked them to produce a report within a year, and I am certain that we will be back in Parliament with that report. By the way, ‘high-level’ in this context really means high-level. The Chair is taken by Ms Vīķe-Freiberga, the former President of Latvia, and the group includes Ms Herta Däubler, the former Justice Minister of Germany; Professor Maduro, the former Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice; and Ben Hammersley, a very famous journalist. So I am looking forward to that result, and I am certain that the honourable Member and his colleagues will also be interested.

Just a couple of remarks about the lack of transparency of the Commission which a couple of your honourable Members have touched on. I got that message; I do not agree. The Commission thoroughly examines all the inquiries addressed to it by the Ombudsman: there can be no doubt about that. The Commission grants requests for access to documents in more than 80% of cases. In only 2% of cases the applicant makes a confirmatory application, and these applications (which is quite remarkable) are generally made by law firms. Speaking about my former life, my experience of law firms is that they are very constructive and also very active, and this is a diplomatic way of saying what is at stake. NGOs and lobbyists are also quite active in that field.

The main reason – and I would like you to pay attention to this – for refusing access to documents is to protect ongoing investigations and the commercial interests of economic operators. These are legitimate interests which may prevent disclosure of documents. So this is not a lack of transparency; it reflects the need to strike the right balance between countervailing interests.

On the subject of the deadlines laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, a significant number of requests – particularly those made by law firms (to mention them again: after all, this is their bread and butter) and NGOs – concern large volumes of documents or complete files of tens of thousands of pages, and I have experience with that. These are truckloads of documents, so to say. All those documents must be assessed before a decision on disclosure can be taken, and it is quite obvious that such an analysis cannot be completed within the timeframes of the regulation I mentioned before.

  Nikiforos Diamandouros, Ombudsman. − Mr President, let me first say three things. I wish to thank all the Members of Parliament for their very positive, warm appraisal and approval of my report. I am deeply grateful for the very broad positive response that I have received. I am deeply grateful for the response that I have received concerning my efforts to promote a culture of service and for the work that I am trying to do to promote public service principles. So I am very much in your debt for that, and I also want to thank Ms McGuinness for her specific report and reflection on my own work.

The second thing that I wish to emphasise is to try and rectify what appears to be a misunderstanding, and I take responsibility for what must be a misunderstanding. Many members of this body are under the assumption that the decline that has been registered in my complaints is an indication of some kind of deterioration. Let me just be very clear. Over the years this Parliament has been insisting that the Ombudsman should try to reduce the number of inadmissible complaints that come to him. We have now reduced that number by 25%. The decline is therefore a success, due to the interactive guide introduced in 2009 which has helped 20 000 citizens to avoid going to the wrong place in the first instance and to be helped with where to go. So may I please insist that the decline is in fact not a failure but a success, and I am perfectly happy to explain that.

Concerning the budget, let me just point out that both in 2009 and 2011 I asked for no budget increase and no increase in my staff, precisely because I am trying to be in line with austerity. If we look at figures in terms of the budget, then I ask that we also take into account the 10 000 (more or less) requests for information and the 20 000 people who have used the interactive guide, to take into account the kind of work that the Ombudsman is doing that goes way beyond the individual complaints that are being handled. This having been said, let me also thank Ms Kroes for her own remarks, and let me just try and respond to two things.

First of all, the Ombudsman needs to be – and should be – fair, and fairness means allocating responsibility where appropriate. It is indeed the case that the Commission, being the largest institution of the Union, will necessarily receive the largest number of complaints. This is not an indication of failed administration at that level by the Commission. This notwithstanding, of course there are problems, and in fact I wish to confirm that.

This having been said, Commissioner, let me just clarify the point concerning the special report last year. The special report came to you not because of the substance of the case but because of the failure of the Commission to cooperate with me in good faith and sincerely. This was the very first time in 15 years I had had to do it, and it regrettably had to do with the Commissioner, who at that time had left. Because of the substance, yes, but I did not submit it after it had been closed, because I was addressing the procedural problem of 15 months’ delay. I want to be clear about that.

Finally I want to thank you for your references to the principles of public service. I can tell this body that I will be issuing a leaflet in the next month that will be addressed to every single member of the staff of the European institutions. This is a guide to help them with how to deal with complaints and, therefore, how to help citizens. I am moving forward with this, it is ready and is in fact being distributed.

Ms Auken, thank you for your question, I will look into the matter and I will provide you with figures. I have to look into that.

The question about public media was addressed by the Commissioner. Let me say to her that, if her expert group is in need of further information, I remain at her disposal.

A final point: complicated but succinct. There are 500 million citizens in the European Union: that is correct. But how many of them need to have contact with the European institutions is really the critical question. I suggest that the vast majority of citizens of the European Union do not need to have contact with the European institutions and therefore to have complaints that will come to me, primarily because the bread and butter issues that have to do with the Ombudsman are at national level, involving the welfare state. We do not have issues about health, education, prisons, police, social security or retirement, therefore the vast majority of the 500 million – mercifully – do not need to come to me. For that very reason I would like to at least inject this corrective into the deliberations of this body.

Finally, let me reiterate that I am enormously grateful for the support that this body has given me over the years and for its continuing support to me for resources and for my budget. I shall continue to do my very best to help Parliament to help me apply and promote good administration. I look forward to working with it and working with the other institutions, including the Commission.

  Илияна Малинова Йотова, докладчик. − Искам да започна с една огромна благодарност към всички колеги, които се включиха в днешната богата дискусия. Всъщност, това е може би единственият доклад в Европейския парламент, който директно е насочен към 500 милиона европейски граждани.

Това показва не само завишения интерес към дейността на Омбудсмана, но и съзнанието за важността на тази дейност и отговорностите, които той носи. Самият факт, че няколко колеги поискаха увеличение на правомощията на Омбудсмана, включително и свободата на медиите, е ясно доказателство в тази посока и аз много се надявам, че заедно с работната група, която комисар Kroes обяви преди малко, ние ще имаме възможности да постигнем нещо повече в тази посока, тъй като дефицитът на медийна свобода в Европа наистина взема застрашителни размери.

Има какво да се направи по отношение на публичната демокрация в Европа. Виждате, че дори и прекрасната инициатива, записана в Лисабонския договор, инициативата от страна на гражданите за ново европейско законодателство, буксува и вече втора година не може да бъде реализирана. Затова тази дейност на Омбудсмана е изключително важна, както и дейността на парламентарната комисия по петиции и жалби.

Съжалявам наистина, че комисар Šefčovič днес не е тук, защото той можеше да чуе много конкретни и важни предложения от страна на европейските депутати. Надявам се г-жо Комисар, че Вие ще му предадете всички наши предложения и забележки. Желая успех както на Комисията, така и в благородната дейност на г-н Омбудсмана.

  El Presidente. − Se cierra el debate.

La votación tendrá lugar hoy, a las 12.30 horas.

Declaraciones por escrito (artículo 149 del Reglamento)

  Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), písemně. – Zpráva hodnotí činnost Evropského veřejného ochránce práv v roce 2010, přičemž jako nedůležitější část této zprávy lze podtrhnout novou strategii úřadu uveřejněnou u příležitosti výročí 15 let jeho vzniku. V roce 2010 zaznamenal veřejný ochránce práv 2 667 stížností od občanů, podniků, sdružení, nevládních organizací a regionálních kanceláří (3 098 v roce 2009) a zpracoval celkem 2 727 stížností. 65 % šetření zahájených veřejným ochráncem práv v roce 2010 se týkalo Evropské komise (219 šetření), což představuje nárůst v porovnání s 56 % v roce 2009 (191 šetření), kdy tento trend nepovažuji za správný. Souhlasím s veřejným ochráncem, že je třeba trvat na základní zásadě poskytování informací a dokumentů v EU, kdy otevřeno je pravidlem a utajení výjimkou. Osobně souhlasím s n_ázorem veřejného ochránce práv, že ještě stále zbývá vykonat mnoho práce, aby se podařilo přesvědčit úředníky o tom, že obranný postoj k veřejnému ochránci práv představuje pro jejich orgány promarněnou příležitost a hrozí, že poškodí obraz Unie jako celku. 33 % všech uzavřených šetření a zahrnovala odmítnutí poskytnout informace a odmítnutí přístupu k dokumentům EU, což osobně považuji za vysoké číslo a je třeba do budoucna požadovat větší míru transparentnosti a otevřenosti.

(Se suspende la sesión durante unos instantes.)

PRZEWODNICZY: JERZY BUZEK
Przewodniczący