Transparency request

Citizens want the administration of EU institutions to be more transparent. The lack of transparency determines citizens’ complaints to the competent bodies. The data was disclosed in the annual Report of the European Ombudsman, presented in Brussels on April 27. In 2008, the Ombudsman received 3,406 complaints from EU citizens, compared to 3,211 in 2007.Transparency and negligence. A third of the cases examined by the EU body tasked with solving citizens’ problems with EU administration, “regarded the lack of transparency and refusal of information to citizens, companies and associations”. Indeed, one every five complaints concerns unfairness or abuse of power. Nikiforos Diamandouros, elected Ombudsman in 2003, opened 296 inquiries (compared to 309 in 2007), while he closed 355 inquiries in 2008 (compared to 348 in 2007). Most complaints (66%) focus on the activities of the Commission. But given that “the Commission is the main Community institution that makes decisions having a direct impact on citizens, it is logical that it should be the principal object of citizens’ complaints”, Diamandouros explained. There were 10% of inquiries concerning the European Parliament, 7% concerning the European Personnel Selection Office; other complaints regarded the EU Council and the European Anti-Fraud Office. Companies’ and NGO complaints on the increase. In 2008 the EU Ombudsman received a total of 7,700 complaints and information requests from citizens, although only a part of all complaints were found to be inside his mandate. Those that were not relevant to his office were diverted to the competent EU services, to national or regional Ombudsmen or were rejected. In almost 80% of cases, the Ombudsman was able to help the complainant. The Ombudsman noted “an increasing number of complaints from companies, associations and NGOs”. Germany produced the greatest number of complaints (16%), followed by Spain (10%), Poland (8%) and France (7%). But relative to the size of their population, most complaints came from Malta, Luxembourg, Cyprus and Belgium. Citizens from Finland, Austria, Slovenia and Ireland also filed a large number of complaints. Activity results. What were the outcomes of the Ombudsman’s intervention? Diamandourous makes known that “in 129 cases closed in 2008, the institution concerned accepted a friendly solution or settled the matter. In a further 101 cases, the matter was clarified so that no further inquiries were needed, while in 110 cases the Ombudsman found no maladministration. The Ombudsman made further remarks aimed at enhancing the quality of the administration in a total of 41 cases. “Maladministration was ascertained in 53 cases, although in eight of these cases the relevant institution accepted the draft recommendation of the Ombudsman. In 44 cases the inquiry was closed with a critical remark to the institution or body concerned”. “Not all responses to inquiries were as exemplary, however”, Diamandourous states in the Report. “The Commission refused to change its stance in an age discrimination case. This refusal led me to submit to Parliament the only special report I issued in 2008”. “While the number of inquiries in which I had to address critical remarks to the EU institutions dropped to 44 (from 55 in 2007), they are still too many”. Ombudsman: on the citizens’ sideThe office of the European Ombudsman (that is seated in Strasbourg) established by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, “investigates complaints about the activities of Community institution and bodies filed by individuals, companies and associations” and by petitioners living or with legal residence in one of the Member States. He is appointed by the European mandate for a renewal five-year mandate. Nikiforos Diamandouros, who previously held the office of national mediator in Greece, was appointed EU Ombudsman in 2003 and was re-elected to this post in 2005 with a five-year mandate. The Ombusdman (official website www.ombudsman.europa.eu) “contributes to the identification of maladministration in EU bodies and institutions”. “Maladministration” includes cases of omission or poor efficiency. In fact, “the Ombudsman has defined “maladministration” in a way that requires respect for fundamental rights, for the rule of law, and for principles of good administration”. Inquiries concerned discrimination, refusal of information, unjustified late payments for EU projects and unfairness.