|
|
European Ombudsman: What
he does and how he does it As
a citizen of the European Union you have the right to complain to the European
Ombudsman, who is there to investigate complaints about maladministration by the
institutions and bodies of the European Community. Maladministration occurs when
a public body fails to act in accordance with a rule or principle which it is
binding upon it. The Ombudsman has
proposed a Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, which was included in the
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (as article 41) on Dec 2000.
Since
it began in 1995 the Office has received 11, 000 complaints. Out of those, 5,
000 cases where transferred to the relevant body. In some 500 cases the
institution in question settled the matter in the citizens favour. Around 200
cases resulted in a remark being made to promote better administration. In about
700 cases, the Ombudsman has found that no maladministration has occurred. But
this at least gives the citizen an explanation of what has occurred. The
Ombudsman can deal with complaints that are within his mandate and which meet
the criteria of admissibility, which would then lead to an investigation. If a
complaint falls outside of that criteria the Ombudsman always tries to give
advice as to another body who can deal with that complaint. Where the Ombudsman
does not instigate a direct reaction, he will at least provide an explanation as
to the cause of the grievance. The
Office is essentially there to ensure that as a citizen your rights are not
ignored. Some more interesting cases that illustrate the diversity of the work
include the following: Un-paid
traineeships (page 66) The
complainant was a student who applied for a traineeship at the European
Commission. The student was offered a place on an unpaid basis. Given that he
had no income he was faced with a difficult situation. Either to accept the
offer and its consequences or to refuse such an important opportunity because of
his limited funds. He lodged a complaint that the Commission in offering unpaid
traineeships was discriminating against applicants with limited financial
resources. The complainant urged that the Commission should reconsider its
position towards personal situation. The
Ombudsman inquiry revealed that since 1997 the Commission had progressively
increased its appropriations for traineeships order to pay the highest possible
number of trainees. The Commission informed the Ombudsman that from March 2002
all recruited trainees should be paid. In 2001 97% of the 1200 trainees were
paid for. This case was settled by the
institution, and in the complainant's case, the Commission was able to pay
him a full five-month grant for his five-month traineeship. Public
access to Commission briefing notes (189) In
July 2001 Mr H complained to the Ombudsman on behalf of a non-governmental
organisation, Corporate Observatory Europe, against the Commission's refusal of
public access to certain documents under Commission Decision 94/90. The
documents concerned the Commissions participation in meetings of the
Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD). The complainant alleged that the
Commission had failed to give sufficient weight to public interest, considering
that TABD is a forum where EU policies, that later have a far-reaching impact in
all European citizens, are proposed and discussed. The
Commission argued that refusal of access was justified for protection of
confidentiality of its proceedings, and that there is no public interest to
disclosure, because the documents shed no additional light to the positions
taken by the Commission regarding TABD proposals. The
Ombudsman considered that the complainant was entitled to invoke a public
interest in disclosure of documents concerning the Commission's relationships
with TABD. The Ombudsman therefore a made a draft
recommendation that the Commission should reconsider the complainant's
application for public access The
Commission's detailed opinion argued that disclosing its internal reasoning
would expose the Commission and its partners and in result weaken its
negotiating position. It also argued that refusal was justified to protect its
decision-making process. The
Ombudsman considered that the Commission had clearly explained how disclosure of
the documents concerned could undermine the protection of the public interest as
regards to international relations. The Ombudsman considered that the Commission had taken
adequate steps to satisfy the draft recommendation and therefore closed the
case. However, the Ombudsman pointed out that he could not accept the
Commission's view of documents being taken out of context and risking the
decision-making powers. In the Ombudsman's view the Commission reasoning on this
point is inconsistent with freedom of expression.
Failure
to consult staff prior to a decision affecting them p 135 The
Commission made the following comments: that the decision to drop transport
allowance had the purpose of compensating staff as they could not benefit from
the daily transport facilities offered by the JRC. The Commission had carried
out a review of its transport allowances whereby it discovered that the
allowances did not have a legal basis. The Court of Auditors also considered
that the transport between work and staffs residences was not exclusively done
during work hours. It moreover considered it unjustified for staff in Ispra,
Italy to have an allowance when staff in Brussels, Petten or Luxembourg did not.
The decision was made to abolish the allowance because there was no legal basis.
Concerning the Article 90 appeal procedure the Commission states that the
complainants complaint was not submitted in time. The
Ombudsman finds the withdrawal of the allowance should have been done with prior
consultation of the staff concerned; that is the staff representatives in the
present case should have been informed in advance. The Ombudsman notes that
Article 90 of the Staff Regulations allows for up to four months for the
employee to appeal, and therefore was late. However, The Ombudsman considers
that it would have been proper to inform the complainant in writing of the
reasons why the appeal was not dealt with, the failure of duly informing the
complainant constitutes maladministration. The Ombudsman notes that indeed there
is no legal basis for transport allowance in Ispra, and that the decision was
made after the audit report by the Court of Auditors. The Ombudsman considers
that the Commission has given a reasonable account and there appears to be no
evidence of maladministration regarding the transport allowance abolition. However,
the withdrawal of the allowance without prior consultation with staff is an
instance of maladministration as was the failure to inform the complainant of
the rejection of his appeal. But the Ombudsman ruled that as these aspects of
the case concern procedure relating to specific events in the past, it is not
appropriate to pursue a friendly settlement of the matter. The Ombudsman
therefore closed the case with a critical
remark. Inquiries
by the Ombudsman may settle the case; however, a friendly solution may be
achieved, or the Ombudsman might close the case with a critical remark, the
office may offer a draft recommendation or a special report. In the following
case the Ombudsman puts an end to discrimination
on the grounds of sex against seconded national experts through a
special report. On
18 February 2000, the complainant, a British civil servant complained against
the European Commission's rules on national experts on detachment to the
Commission. The complainant alleged that the rule established by the Commission
according to which national experts on secondment had to work full-time was
discriminatory on the grounds of sex. On 15 November 2001 following an in-depth
inquiry, the Ombudsman submitted a special report to the European Parliament,
recommending that the Commission should abolish its rule prohibiting national
experts on secondment from working-part time as quickly as possible. On
30 April 2002 the Commission adopted a decision on Rules applicable to National
Experts on Secondment to the Commission. Article 12 of these Rules provides that
national experts may be authorised to work-part time. On 8 October 2002 the
European Parliament's Committee on Petitions adopted a report in which it
endorsed the Ombudsman's special report. Given that the European Parliament has
now completed its examination of the Ombudsman's special report and endorsed its conclusions the case was closed. The
Ombudsman's key areas of activity are: ·
safeguarding
fundamental rights ·
ensuring an open and
accountable administration ·
improving the service
for the institutions provide ·
guaranteeing respect
for the rule of law
More information can be found at |