Honorable Defensor del Pueblo de España,
Señor Presidente del Foro de la Nueva Economía,
Estimados colegas,
Señoras y señores:

Introducción

Es un gran placer estar presente, de nuevo, en este encuentro organizado por el Foro de la Nueva Economía, para hablarles de mi visión de Europa y de la necesidad de un mayor compromiso con sus ciudadanos en el proceso de integración europea.

Pero antes de entrar en materia, permítanme expresar mi agradecimiento al Presidente de este Foro, Señor José Luís Rodríguez, por brindarme la oportunidad de estar aquí con Ustedes. Querría también dar las gracias a mi colega y amigo, Enrique Múgica, por su halagadora presentación, así como a los Defensores del Pueblo autonómicos que han venido hasta Madrid para presenciar esta conferencia. Sin lugar a dudas, sin la estrecha colaboración con todos ellos, el Defensor del Pueblo Europeo no hubiera podido avanzar en la defensa de los derechos de los ciudadanos europeos.

Hace dos años y medio, la Unión Europea debió iniciar un serio proceso de reflexión como resultado del voto negativo de Francia y Holanda a la Constitución europea. Europa ha vuelto a esa situación de incertidumbre tras el rechazo de Irlanda al Tratado de Lisboa en junio de este año.

Incertidumbre acrecentada con la presente crisis económica que no sólo sacude a nuestro continente, sino al conjunto del planeta, con un impacto que nuestros conciudadanos están sintiendo en su día-a-día. Son esos ciudadanos los que exigen de nuestros políticos una explicación de lo que está pasando y, sobre todo, respuestas a estos desafíos.

Esto me acerca al objeto de mi discurso: la imperiosa necesidad de que la Unión Europea sea capaz de comprometerse más con sus ciudadanos y responder así a sus exigencias. Pero me permitirán Ustedes que lo haga en inglés, cambiado de idioma, por lo que les ruego su comprensión.

The challenge of making the EU more accountable to its citizens is a theme central to my work as European Ombudsman. But I should also mention that, in my many years as a professor of political science, I devoted considerable attention to the concept of accountability and its role in modern democracies.

“Accountability” is often difficult to translate into other languages. In Spanish, the closest term is "compromiso" or "responsabilidad".

Given the fact that there is no wholly satisfactory translation of the term in Spanish, let me provide a definition. To be accountable means to have the duty to provide an account: that is, to explain and justify one's actions in terms of appropriate criteria and in sufficient detail. The criteria and level of detail that are required depend, of course, on the context.

The concept of accountability also includes liability to some form of sanction if the performance revealed by the account is considered unsatisfactory. The sanction may be legal or, in a broad sense, political. Public criticism, for example, can be a significant form of sanction in a democracy.

Going back to my earlier mention of the recent "no" votes in European referenda, it is clear that the results constituted a sanction for the EU, among others. As an instrument of accountability, a referendum is, of course, a blunt instrument. But the results tell us that there is still a problem - real or perceived - of lack of accountability at the EU level. There is still a gap between the EU and its citizens, a gap that raises the issue of the Union's legitimacy.

Despite real progress in terms of transparency and accountability, the EU continues to be seen by many as incomprehensible and remote. What more can be done to bridge the gap that still exists? More specifically, how can the European Ombudsman help to improve the EU's image and its relations with citizens?

I will try to give some answers to these questions.

A problem of legitimacy

The issue of the Union's legitimacy is not a new one.

Over fifteen years ago the framers of the Maastricht Treaty tried to tackle the problem in a number of ways. They established citizenship of the Union and the European Ombudsman. The Maastricht Treaty also highlighted the principle of subsidiarity, to ensure that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen.

The Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 addressed the legitimacy problem through greater transparency. Decisions in the Union should be taken as openly as possible and there is a right of public access to documents, held by the three main EU institutions, for Union citizens and residents.

At the end of the year 2000, the inter-governmental conference on the Nice Treaty recognised that the problem of legitimacy remained unsolved. A year later, the Laeken Declaration set in train the process that led, through the European Convention, to the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe.

The "no" votes in the referenda in France and the Netherlands gave rise to the aforementioned period of reflection. Heads of State and Government then signed the Lisbon Treaty in December 2007.

The Lisbon Treaty is an attempt to recognise and to rationalise the multi-level system of governance that has been created in the European Union over the last fifty years. To simplify greatly, the Treaty represents not more Europe, or less Europe, but an explicit acknowledgement of the Europe that we now have.

The fact that it has not been possible to obtain approval for that is a demonstration of what I have referred to elsewhere as the Union's legitimacy problem.

I shall refrain from offering you a grand design for the Union’s legitimacy or a road map of how to get there. Those are tasks for political leaders, not for the Ombudsman.

Neither shall I involve myself in conjecture regarding the particular reasons why Irish voters said "no" to the Lisbon Treaty. It would be remiss of me, however, not to give you my views on the Treaty itself.

I firmly believe that the Treaty is good for the Union and would help address the Union's legitimacy problems. Not least, it would enhance the role of both the European Parliament and national Parliaments, a development which can only serve to strengthen the Union's democratic credentials. A legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights is also a welcome addition given the strong signal this sends in terms of the importance the Union attaches to human and fundamental rights.

With regard to my own role, the Treaty confirms that the Ombudsman is elected; an important point as far as my independence is concerned. It also clarifies that the Ombudsman deals with complaints against the Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, as opposed to just Community institutions and bodies in the current Treaty.

I think the Treaty of Lisbon constitutes a move in the right direction as far as the Union's citizens are concerned, so it is natural that I would like to see a positive outcome to the present impasse. But again, the question of how is not one I will explore this morning.

The Ombudsman as a net provider of legitimacy

What I will talk about in detail is how the European Ombudsman can be a net provider of legitimacy to the overall system of EU governance.

The European Ombudsman was established to help bring the Union closer to citizens and to give the EU administration a "human face". The defining feature of the institution is that the Ombudsman is a person, who communicates personally with individual citizens writing to him, reviews their case, and seeks to have their complaint resolved.

Each one of these - shall I call them "microcommunications"? - helps to humanise the EU administration and to bring it closer to the citizen. In Spain, like my national counterpart, I am referred to as "Defensor del Pueblo". I find that this term reflects very well the work of an ombudsman, who helps the citizen resolve conflicts with the administration.

Each year the number of complaints tends to increase and you will hardly be surprised to hear me say that I find this reassuring. I firmly believe that more complaints do not reflect worsening performance on the part of the institutions. For me, they show that citizens feel that it is worth their while exercising their rights. Their voice counts. Their action will help to improve the situation. Surely the time to despair would be if they felt that no one was listening to them and that complaining was futile.

Complaints that my office has dealt with have helped to make a real difference in terms of a more open and accountable EU administration. As European Ombudsman, I have a special responsibility to encourage greater openness, whenever possible. It is to this aspect of the Ombudsman's work that I now turn.

Serving as the guardian of transparency

Since the establishment of the institution, the European Ombudsman has striven for a more open and democratic European Union.

Transparency and democratic accountability go hand in hand, and are key to building citizens' trust in the Union. The basic idea of transparency is that citizens should easily be able to obtain the information they need in order to call public authorities to account.

Transparency implies that public authorities should be proactive in publishing certain kinds of information, in ways that can be easily understood by the intended audience. In addition, transparency requires public authorities to react promptly and positively to requests from members of the public for access to information and documents which have not been published.

Many of the European Ombudsman's achievements in this area are linked to his inquiries into allegations of refusal of access to documents and information. Almost one third of all our inquiries concern failure to provide adequate information.

Monitoring how the institutions live up to their promises on consultation

Greater transparency in the EU, in the form of greater access to information and more open decision-making procedures, is key to facilitating citizens' participation in the EU policy making process.

In the light of the increasing impact of EU law and policy on the everyday life of citizens, residents and businesses in the Member States, one should not underestimate the need to ensure that those affected are properly consulted.

The Ombudsman cannot annul legislation, nor is it my role to investigate how the political process has operated. I can, however, look into whether the Commission, in particular, has followed procedural requirements, such as the duty to carry out consultations before proposing legislation.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that I recently signed with the President of the European Investment Bank (EIB), Philippe Maystadt, is also relevant in this regard. The agreement underlines that the EIB should inform the public about the policies, standards and procedures applying to the environmental, social and developmental aspects of its activities. The purpose of the agreement is to improve stakeholders' protection from any possible maladministration as regards the EIB's activities.

I will return to this issue shortly in reference to a complaint I received recently from a Spanish citizen.

Transparency of lobbying activities

Let me mention one final area that is of particular importance in any discussion of transparency and the EU institutions, namely the need for transparency with regard to lobbying activities. It has come to my attention, in discussions with representatives of civil society, that there is significant disquiet about, what many perceive to be, an excessively secretive lobbying culture in Brussels.

In my view, more open policy-making procedures should form an integral part of any strategy designed to enhance the Union's legitimacy in the eyes of its citizens.

A key component of the European Transparency Initiative, which was launched by the Commission in November 2005, involves promoting more transparency in the activities of lobby groups at the EU level. I intend to follow developments in this area closely and have encouraged those who identify problems to bring them to my attention through the complaints procedure.

Spain as an example

Let me now turn to complaints from Spain.

Since the institution of the European Ombudsman was established, Spain has always ranked highly in terms of complaints. Over the past three years, for example, Spain has been either first or second in terms of complaints.

What I find even more interesting, however, is the highly creative way in which Spanish citizens make use of the Ombudsman to help make the EU administration more accountable.

In 2004, for example, I received a large number of complaints from Spanish citizens about the death of immigrants who were being illegally transported from the North African coast to the South of Spain. The complainants mainly referred to the responsibility of the Spanish and Moroccan governments for the deaths resulting from this illegal immigration. They suggested that these authorities and, by extension, the EU authorities, should address the problem of illegal immigration and adopt the appropriate measures.

As the European Ombudsman cannot deal with complaints concerning national, regional or local administrations of the Member States or complaints concerning the need for, or merits of, Community legislation, the Ombudsman advised the complainants to turn to the Spanish national ombudsman insofar as the activities of the Spanish administration are concerned. As regards the complainants' suggestion that the EU authorities should take a stance, they were advised to petition the European Parliament, which has both investigatory and legislative powers that could be used in relation to this matter.

More recently, I received a complaint from a resident of Barcelona, who alleged that the tunnel project through the centre of Barcelona for the planned high-speed railway segment between Madrid and Barcelona connection could cause serious environmental damage to surrounding buildings, in particular to Gaudí's "Sagrada Familia". He argued that the European Investment Bank's agreement to co-finance this segment of the project, in providing more than one quarter of the total cost, was wrong. In his view, the EIB should re-examine the project and re-consider its decision to finance it.

During an inspection of the file, my staff could not find any record of a review by the EIB of the environmental impact assessment carried out by the Spanish authorities for the segment of the project going through Barcelona. I therefore called on the EIB to review and fully document the assessment before giving any financial assistance to this part of the project.

In my view, these two examples illustrate well that Spanish citizens are particularly keen to hold the EU institutions to account and will make use of their right to complain to the European Ombudsman to help ensure that the institutions are, in fact, accountable. As I said, it is of utmost importance that citizens feel that it is worth their while exercising their rights and that their action will help to improve the situation.

Conclusion

To conclude, let me say that whilst the situation is by no means perfect, I firmly believe that the Union institutions have, in the period since the adoption of the Maastricht Treaty, made very great progress towards ensuring the transparency of their functioning. This has involved a major cultural change, of a kind that can neither be effected overnight, nor by legal rules alone.

It is important to emphasise, however, that greater transparency alone does not offer a swift and sure route to greater legitimacy for the European Union. On the contrary, we face a long, hard slog to establish effective mechanisms of accountability, supported by appropriate forms of transparency.

When you hear me say that we must be prepared to face a long, hard slog, you will rightly guess that I am deeply sceptical about the adequacy of suggestions for a quick democratic fix, such as electing a President of Europe on a Europe-wide basis, or holding a Europe-wide constitutional referendum. Such ideas seem to me to put the cart before the horse, to use a colloquial expression.

I am, rather, persuaded that there is no alternative to the long, hard slog. I find encouragement in the progress that has been made up to now and would like to think that the Ombudsman has played his part in that. But we still have work to do. And I am ready to contribute to this joint effort.

Thank you for your attention.