Dear Mr K.,
On 17 March 1997 you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the Groupeuro Agreements between the European Commission and financial experts in the Member States.
On 15 April 1997, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 5 September 1997 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. I have not received your observations on the Commission's opinion.
I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

BACKGROUND

The aim of the Groupeuro Agreements is to engage at least 170 financial experts as lecturers to carry out dissemination of information on the third phase of EMU and to help in particular the "Euro: One Currency for Europe" project. The Commission provides the necessary background information to the lecturers and they attend two training sessions per year. The lecturers receive a flat rate sum of 300 Ecu/lecture.

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant pointed out that according to the Code of Practice in Annex I of the Groupeuro Agreements, the lecturers:

"...shall refrain in particular from any personal or subjective interpretation of the information supplied to them by the Commission. They may speak in a personal capacity for part of the lecture, provided that they state explicitly that they are going to do so and do not express any views contrary to those of the Commission."

The complainant claimed that both the European Parliament and the Commission had agreed on a principle that the dissemination of information on the third phase of the EMU should not be based on one-sided propaganda. He alleged that the Groupeuro Agreements were contrary to that principle and that therefore there was an instance of abuse of power as the Commission is obliging the financial experts in different Member States to disseminate only the Commission's policy.
The complainant requested that the European Ombudsman look into the matter to see whether the Commission had complied with the principle of good administration.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion
The Commission's opinion can be summarised as follows:

In 1996 it had decided to create the Groupeuro which is a group of voluntary external experts with ad hoc competences kept regularly informed of developments relating to the matter and linked with a clear mandate to the Commission in order to participate on its behalf in various forums when the official representative is not available.

The main objective is to initiate a debate on EMU, representing the position of the Commission when it is requested.

It is legitimate that Groupeuro lecturers are linked to the Commission by an ethical code which they are clearly free to accept or to decline.

When the lecturers express themselves outside of the framework of the Agreement they are totally without ties.

Signing of the Agreement is voluntary and the lecturers may resign at any given moment.

The Commission has never had the intention to limit the freedom of expression.

In light of the experience gained during the first period of the Agreement and in order to avoid any misunderstanding, it has been decided to modify the text of the Code of Practice to increase transparency.

In so far as the Euro information politics of the Commission are concerned, the Commission wanted to make the following points:

The pluralism of information is ensured by at least two means, firstly, by several colloquiums or conference cycles organised during the last 18 months within the framework of PRINCE with interventions from EMU sceptics. Secondly, the members of Groupeuro have participated in various conferences including the EMU opposition.

The members of the Groupeuro present the point of view of the Commission in the framework of open and pluralist debates.

Finally, the Commission always proposes to arrange that an MEP participates in the programme.

The Commission annexed a copy of answers given to MEP Hautala during the Parliament's Plenary Session of March 1997.
The complainant made no observations on the Commission's opinion.

THE DECISION

1 Freedom of expression and the Groupeuro Agreements
1.1 The Treaty on European Union Article F, paragraph 2, provides that the Union shall respect fundamental rights as general principles of law following the way in which these rights are guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms(1) and as they result from the common constitutional traditions of the Member States.
1.2 Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights provides that freedom of expression includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority. Article 10 § 2 of the Convention envisages that, under certain conditions, limits on freedom of expression may be prescribed by law.
1.3 The Ombudsman notes that in light of the experience gained during the first period of the Agreement and in order to avoid any misunderstanding, the European Commission has modified the text of the Code of Practice to increase transparency. The phrase "They shall refrain in particular from any personal or subjective interpretation of the information supplied to them by the Commission" and the phrase "Members of the Groupeuro shall not seek to contact the press" have been deleted from the Agreement.
1.4 The modified text of the Agreement reads as follows (translation by the Ombudsman's services):

"Members of Groupeuro in the exercise of above-mentioned tasks are to respect the usual ethical rules, particularly as far as transmission and interpretation of information on EMU provided for them by the European Commission is concerned.

...

If members of the Groupeuro are contacted by journalists during or after a lecture, they may reply to questions pertaining to the lecture but may not broach matters falling outside its scope."

1.5 In view of the fact that the Commission in its opinion stated that it never had any intention to limit the freedom of expression and that it subsequently decided to modify the Groupeuro Agreement, in particular the second paragraph of the Code of Practice criticised by the complainant, in order to render the Agreement more transparent, there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to conduct further inquiries into the complaint.

CONCLUSION

It appears from the European Commission's comments that the Commission has taken steps to settle the matter and appears to have thereby satisfied the complainant. The Ombudsman has therefore decided to close the case.
The President of the European Commission will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely,
Jacob SÖDERMAN

---

(1) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Rome, 4 November 1950.