What are the Ombudsman
| Author | The European Ombudsman |
| Pages | 11-22 |
Page 11
Since the post was established in 1995, the Ombudsman has dealt with over 10 000 complaints. The matters raised have ranged from tax provisions to project funding and from competition law to sex discrimination. The problems that arise most frequently concern late payment, contractual disputes, arbitrary discrimination and lack of information.
The following section gives an overview of the results the Ombudsman has achieved in his key areas of activity.
The European Union has firmly committed itself to respecting fundamental rights. In December 2000, the Presidents of the Union"s three main institutions - the Commission, the Parliament and the Council - proclaimed the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in Nice. This makes it clear for citizens what fundamental rights the EU institutions and bodies should respect.
The Ombudsman has been active in ensuring that the charter is taken seriously by the institutions that proclaimed it. Constantly reminding them of the promises they made to European citizens, he applies pressure so that the institutions prove in practice that they respect the charter in their daily work.
Article 43 of the charter contains the right to complain to the European Ombudsman:
"Any citizen of the Union and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State has the right to refer to the Ombudsman of the Union cases of maladministration in the activities of the Community institutions or bodies ..."
Page 12
The European Commission abolished a rule allowing sex discrimination after an inquiry by the Ombudsman. The rule prevented seconded national experts from working part-time and worked to the disadvantage of a greater number of women than men. The Ombudsman was alerted to the problem by a UK civil servant who wanted to work part-time during her secondment so that she could look after her young child. The Ombudsman reminded the Commission of Article 21 of the charter that prohibits discrimination on a number of grounds, including sex.
The European Parliament and the Commission abolished the use of age limits in recruitment, following pressure from the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman argued that the use of age limits amounted to discrimination, prohibited under Article 21 of the charter. After the Ombudsman refused to sign the decision setting up the interinstitutional European Recruitment Office because of age limits, the Parliament and the Commission agreed to end their use with immediate effect.
The European Commission took steps to clarify officials" freedom of expression after criticism from the Ombudsman. Referring to Article 11 of the charter that gives the right to freedom of expression and information, the Ombudsman highlighted the lack of clear guidance for officials concerning their rights and obligations in this area. In response, the Commission proposed a guide to explain the relevant staff rules and agreed concrete changes to the rules requiring officials to obtain prior authorisation for publications on their work.
Page 13
The charter contains the right to good administration. The Ombudsman proposed that this right be included, arguing that European citizens are entitled to an open, accountable and service-minded administration.
To clearly define what good administration means in practice, the Ombudsman drafted the European code of good administrative behaviour. This tells citizens what they have the right to expect from the EU administration and gives guidance to officials on how to behave in dealing with the public. Officials who follow the code can be sure that they will avoid instances of maladministration. The service they provide to European citizens should improve as a result.
The European Parliament approved this code in September 2001. The Ombudsman now uses it when investigating complaints made by citizens about the administration. He has called on the Commission to propose a European administrative law based on the code. This law would apply equally to all EU institutions and bodies. MEPs supported this initiative when they adopted the code.
The Ombudsman is keen to inform citizens and officials about the code so that both sides know what their rights and obligations are. He has published the code on his web site in 11 languages and as a user-friendly brochure that is available from his office.
Page 14
The European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) in Thessaloniki adopted measures to ensure respect for its code of good administrative behaviour after an inquiry by the Ombudsman. He found that Cedefop had used improper language in dealing with complaints. This went against the principle of courtesy laid down in the code. Cedefop agreed to give instructions to staff and to publicise summaries of its answers to complaints on its web site.
The European Commission was criticised by the Ombudsman for failing to reply to a Portuguese human rights organisation. The organisation had lodged a complaint with the Commission about the failure of the Portuguese authorities to protect the interests of its members. The Ombudsman reminded the Commission that principles of good administrative behaviour require it to reply properly to queries and to inform people of the follow-up given to their complaints.
The Ombudsman criticised the Committee of the Regions for failing to honour a commitment it made to a Dutch citizen. The candidate had been placed on a reserve list to fill a post in the European Alliance Group. The Committee promised to inform her as soon as the post became vacant but failed to do so. The Ombudsman reminded the Committee that it is good administrative practice to comply with commitments taken towards citizens.
The European Parliament apologised to citizens from Brussels, Paris and London for failing to notify them of the result of a design competition. Fifteen months after the closing date for applications, the candidates had still not been told of the outcome. The Ombudsman called on the Parliament to apologise. The Parliament admitted that the way its services had dealt with information requests from the applicants had been unacceptable.
Page 15
Transparency is an essential part of democracy. As a citizen, you have a right to know how and why decisions are taken. If you have this information, you can evaluate how your political representatives are performing and ensure that public authorities are accountable. Being well-informed enables you to participate effectively in the ongoing public debate which is part of a healthy democracy.
The European Union is committed to democracy and recognises citizenship. The EU institutions are then obliged to defend and promote the principle of transparency.
Article 1 of the Treaty states that:
"... decisions (in the Union) are taken as openly as possible".
This duty has not always been fully respected. Many of the complaints dealt with by the European Ombudsman have been about a lack of transparency in the institutions.
The Ombudsman has worked hard so that the EU institutions provide the widest possible access to information. His inquiries on public access to EU documents led almost all the Community institutions and bodies to adopt and publish rules on access. He has won many cases for European citizens who complained to him after they were refused information. The number of EU documents in the public domain has increased as a result.
Statewatch , a UK-based group monitoring civil liberties in the EU, obtained documents from the Council after the Ombudsman intervened. The Council had refused to release the documents but reconsidered its initial decision in light of the arguments presented. The Ombudsman underlined the importance of safeguarding the widest possible access for European citizens to information and the need to respect rules on the right of access to documents.
Page 16
In May 2001, the European Parliament and the Council adopted new rules on public access to documents of the Parliament, Council and Commission. These institutions must now maintain a public register of documents, which is accessible in electronic form and must be updated without delay. If the institutions keep faith with the principle of openness when applying the rules, citizens will be in a much better position to understand how the institutions work.
The European Commission is responsible for ensuring that Member States respect Community law. In carrying out this task, it is known informally as "the Guardian of the Treaty." It relies mainly on complaints from citizens to identify cases where Member States are not applying Community law.
Many citizens were dissatisfied with how the Commission dealt with these cases. They complained to the Ombudsman, saying that the procedure was secretive and time consuming, there was a lack of information about developments and the Commission failed to give reasons for closing cases.
Stressing the need for more transparency and for the citizen to be treated properly, the Ombudsman called on the Commission to improve its procedure. In response, the Commission agreed to tell the complainant when it intends to close a case and why, before taking a final decision.
After the Ombudsman received yet more complaints, he called on the Commission to draw up a code to govern its dealings with citizens during the procedure. In March 2002, the Commission took steps to improve the situation.
Page 17
The Commission adopted measures to defend citizens" rights in infringement cases after the Ombudsman criticised its procedure. He found that the Commission had misinformed a complainant about why it closed an investigation. It had also failed to give the complainant a genuine opportunity to produce further evidence. The case concerned the alleged violation of Community law by the Greek authorities in awarding the project to construct the metro in Thessaloniki.
Secrecy in the procedures that the EU institutions use to recruit staff has been another frequent source of complaints to the Ombudsman. This is all the more serious as this is often the first contact people have with the EU administration.
As a result of the work carried out by the Ombudsman, the reserve lists of successful candidates are now published and candidates can see their own marked examination scripts and find out who is on the Selection Board. This drive to increase transparency in recruitment should help ensure that candidates have greater confidence in the procedure, leading to a better overall impression of the institutions.
The European Parliament agreed to give all candidates in its recruitment competitions a copy of their own marked examination papers upon request following an investigation by the Ombudsman. A number of Italian candidates complained to him after they participated in a competition organised by the Parliament and were refused access to their marked exams.
Page 18
You have the right to expect that the public administration you rely on works properly. From failing to respect contractual obligations to dragging their heels over payment, the EU institutions have not always shown an example of best practice. But when the Ombudsman brings a problem to their attention, they work constructively to put things right. As a result, the service the institutions provide has certainly improved.
When you write to a Community institution or body, you can now expect a response in your own language. You can insist that officials explain and justify decisions when asked. If you respond to a call for tender, you can rest assured that the Ombudsman will intervene if you feel unfairly treated. In short, thanks to his efforts, you should now receive the high quality service you deserve.
Delayed payment can be a problem for any company but for small and medium-sized enterprises it can be a matter of survival or bankruptcy. The Ombudsman has secured payment for lots of citizens, businesses and associations whose grants, fees and subsidies have not been paid on time.
A German consulting firm was paid the final instalment of its fee, along with interest from as far back as 1995, after complaining to the Ombudsman. The firm concluded a contract with the European Commission in 1994 and waited six years for payment.
The Commission adopted a flexible approach to avoid delayed payment to sub-contractors after an investigation by the Ombudsman. A UK sub-contractor had complained to him that it was being unfairly penalised because of a clause in a contract with the Commission. The clause stated that the main contractor would not be paid until he submitted the cost statements of all his sub-contractors. After a suggestion from the Ombudsman, the Commission asked the main contractor to submit the cost statements it had received so that payment could be made to sub-contractors who had respected the deadline.
Page 19
The Commission took steps to settle a problem of outstanding VAT payments to Irish universities after the Ombudsman looked into the case. An Irish professor had complained to him that the Commission had failed to refund 200 000 euro worth of VAT on research contracts. The Commission confirmed that payment would be made as soon as it had completed the necessary procedure. As the problem arose because the Irish system was not fully aligned with Community tax rules, the Commission also announced that it had launched an infringement procedure against Ireland.
After receiving an increasing number of complaints about late payment by the European Commission, the Ombudsman opened an own initiative inquiry. In response, the Commission proposed to simplify, clarify and generally improve the way it pays its creditors. The number of complaints to the Ombudsman about late payment has decreased substantially as a result.
The Commission is now committed to submitting 95 % of all invoices for payment within 60 days, instead of the previous 60 %.
When a citizen, company or association signs a contract with one of the EU institutions, it expects the administration to respect its obligations. Views often differ, however, as to what exactly was agreed. The Ombudsman is always careful to ensure that the EU institutions respect what they signed up to.
The Commission agreed to grant a further 11 000 euro to a German scientist and his colleagues after he complained to the Ombudsman. He said that the Commission failed to compensate him for the deterioration of the exchange rate between the yen and the euro. This meant that he received less than comparable scientists that had arrived to Japan the year before or the year after under the same research programme.
The Ombudsman secured payment for a French artist who had worked on information brochures for the European Commission. The artist complained to the Ombudsman after the Commission refused to pay his copyright fee when the brochures were reprinted. During the Ombudsman"s investigation, the Commission proposed a financial settlement that was accepted by the artist.
Page 20
The Commission withdrew a request for reimbursement and agreed to pay the final instalment of a grant, after the Ombudsman intervened. The grant was for the joint development of a multilingual CD-ROM by secondary schools in France, the UK, Spain and the Netherlands. One of the grant recipients had transferred resources between budget lines. The Commission argued that this was improper. However, the Ombudsman pointed out that this was allowed under the terms of the contract and called on the Commission to pay up.
The Ombudsman criticised the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work in Bilbao for failing to ensure that a contract it concluded was in line with Spanish labour law. This followed a complaint from a Spanish man who said that, by not taking account of his age in classifying him, the Agency did not respect the Commission"s local staff rules on which his contract was based. The Agency argued that Spanish law made it unlawful to take age into account.
Complaints received by the Ombudsman have helped highlight inefficient procedures, out-dated methods and discriminatory practices in the institutions. In response, the institutions have taken steps to address these shortcomings, leading to a fairer and more effective administration.
The Directorate for Resources of the European Commission"s Joint Research Centre in Ispra, Italy improved its working methods after an investigation by the Ombudsman. He had criticised the Centre a number of times for poor treatment of grant holders, irregular recruitment procedures and unfair contract clauses. In response, the Directorate introduced a computerised system to keep track of deadlines, a decentralised complaints procedure and a decentralised financial control system.
After criticism from the Ombudsman, the Commission tightened its audit rules. This followed an allegation by a Danish citizen that the Commission"s anti-fraud personnel had made inappropriate statements to national newspapers about his case and that its audit officials had behaved inappropriately during an audit inspection. Among the measures taken was the adoption of an internal manual of procedure giving concrete instructions to personnel on relations with the media.
Page 21
The rule of law is one of the fundamental principles the EU is based on. This implies that no person or body, however powerful, can break the law with impunity.
The European Commission has a duty to ensure that Member States respect Community law. The Ombudsman has brought a number of cases to its attention, based on complaints he received. In this way, he has played his part in ensuring that the Community rules are taken seriously all over the Union.
The Ombudsman called on the Commission to investigate the risks posed by the breakdown of a British submarine"s nuclear reactor in Gibraltar. This followed the claim by several social and political associations that the authorities had not taken the necessary health measures or given information to the public, as required under EU law. The Ombudsman transferred the complaint to the Commission to see if the situation contravened EU rules on the protection of the public against radiation risks.
The Ombudsman asked the Commission to examine two complaints from Finnish citizens on the rounding of payments made in euro. The complainants claimed that the Finnish practice of not making formal use of 1 and 2 cent coins and of rounding prices upwards or downwards was unfair and against EU law. The Ombudsman asked the Commission to examine if the Finnish authorities had correctly applied the Community law that provided for the first series of coins to include eight denominations ranging from 1 cent to 2 euro.
Page 22
Staff of the EU institutions can complain to the Ombudsman about problems they encounter with their employer. These can range from allegations of unfair dismissal to questions about the social security coverage for spouses. The Ombudsman has been successful in resolving many disputes that have been brought to his attention.
The Ombudsman won equal treatment for three Swedish fisheries inspectors who complained about their grading at the European Commission. After taking up their positions, the inspectors noticed that all of the other fisheries inspectors recruited before and after them had been placed in higher grades. The Ombudsman concluded that the Commission had not acted in accordance with principles of good administrative behaviour and the case law of the European Court of Justice.
The Commission settled a complaint about supplementary insurance schemes for its local staff in Austria after the Ombudsman examined the case. The schemes should have been introduced in 1995. Acknowledging that a delay had occurred, the Commission introduced a supplementary policy for temporary incapacity to work, invalidity, death and retirement, retroactively from 1 January 1995.
The Commission agreed not to recover medical expenses from an official and to reimburse him amounts taken from his pension after he complained. The Ombudsman said that the Commission did not adequately justify its decision to recover the expenses that had been incurred 10 years earlier. The complainant had worked in Brussels and Luxembourg from 1964 to 1979 and was compulsorily retired due to invalidity.
