The European Ombudsman, Jacob Söderman, presented his Annual Report for 2002 to the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament today. The Report gives an overview of the Ombudsman's busiest year to date and highlights the results achieved for EU citizens. This is the last report Mr. Söderman will present as he retires on 31 March 2003.

2002 was the first year in Mr. Söderman's seven years as Ombudsman that the number of complaints exceeded 2,000. Complaints sent by Internet continued to rise − around half of the complaints were sent this way. The Ombudsman opened more inquiries in 2002 than ever before (up 8% on 2001) and handled them promptly and effectively − at the end of the year, all but four inquiries had been closed within the one-year target.

Much was achieved for European citizens in 2002. The Ombudsman continued to apply pressure on the EU institutions to implement the Charter of Fundamental Rights. As a result, the use of age limits in recruitment to the main institutions was finally abolished and the Commission took steps to tackle sex discrimination. There was progress in establishing principles on how to compensate citizens for damages when the administration has not fulfilled its obligations on time.

The Ombudsman worked hard in 2002 to increase public awareness of the citizen's right to complain. He published his "Guide for citizens" in 11 languages, issued a press release every 10 days on average and presented his work at seminars and meetings in over half of the EU Member States. This effort paid off. According to the Eurobarometer on citizenship published at the end of last year, the right to complain to the Ombudsman is the second best known right of EU citizenship.

Since becoming the Union's first Ombudsman in September 1995, Mr. Söderman has dealt with close to 12,000 complaints and opened over 1,500 investigations. Commenting on the results of his work, he said "The European institutions and bodies have co-operated well. They are keen to enhance their relations with citizens by reacting quickly and constructively to complaints. What's more, every case has a preventive effect, paving the way for better procedures and thus reducing the need for complaints in the future."

For more details on the cases dealt with by the Ombudsman in 2002, please see Annexes I and II attached.

 

For further information, please call Mr. Ian Harden, Head of the Legal Department, tel:+32 (0) 2 284 38 49.

---

ANNEX I : ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINTS IN 2002
How many?

The Ombudsman received 2,211 complaints in 2002, representing an 18% increase compared to 2001 (1,874). Admissible complaints rose by 6% from 313 in 2001 to 331 in 2002. The Ombudsman opened 222 inquiries on the basis of these complaints (an 8% increase on 2001), as well as 2 inquiries on his own initiative.

Against whom?

Most of the admissible complaints - 75% - targeted the European Commission. The Ombudsman received 21 complaints against the European Parliament's administration (9% of the total) and 12 against the Council's administration (5%).

About what?

Lack or refusal of information, avoidable delay, unfairness, procedural errors and negligence were the most common source of complaints. Problems with calls for tender and contracts concluded with the institutions were raised frequently.

From whom?

Most complaints - 92% - came from individual citizens. Companies sent 3% of complaints, while 4% came from associations. 13 complaints were transmitted by MEPs or other ombudsmen.

Spain produced the greatest number of complaints - 16% of the total, followed by Germany (14%), Belgium (10%) and France (10%).

		De	UK	Fr	It	Es	Nl	El	Be	Pt	Sv	At	Da	Fi	Ie	Lu	Other
2002	Complaints	308	144	213	191	354	76	109	220	88	53	45	19	121	38	25	207
	% of total	14	7	10	9	16	3	5	10	4	2	2	1	5	2	1	9
2001	Complaints	323	112	234	189	259	80	51	153	78	56	34	19	85	36	33	132
	% of total	17	6	12	10	14	4	3	8	4	3	2	1	5	2	2	7
	% EU pop	22	16	16	15	11	4	3	3	3	2	2	1	1	1	0,1

What result?

Over a quarter (66) of the cases that were investigated were settled by the institutions − proof that the EU administration is keen to resolve problems that the Ombudsman brings to their attention. The institutions accepted 10 draft recommendations made by the Ombudsman. In only 2 cases did the Ombudsman send a special report to the Parliament − when his recommendations on openness were not followed.

The Ombudsman found no maladministration in 128 cases. It is important to recall that when no maladministration is found, the complainant at least receives a full explanation from the institution concerned and the Ombudsman's view of the case. In 29 cases the Ombudsman made a critical remark.

The Ombudsman provided advice as to who to contact to over 1,200 citizens whose complaints fell outside his mandate. He also responded to 3,717 e-mail requests for information, an increase of almost 60% compared to 2001.

How long?

On 31 December 2002, the real backlog of cases (i.e. the number of inquiries open for more than one year) was 4 compared to 22 on 31 December 2001. This was despite an increase in the number of inquiries conducted.

---

ANNEX II: SAMPLES OF COMPLAINTS IN 2002
Lack of transparency

The Council agreed to review a request for access to documents after the Ombudsman launched a special report about its behaviour. The documents were from its meetings on justice and home affairs and were requested by Statewatch, a UK body fighting for openness and transparency. After the Council failed to release all the relevant documents, the Ombudsman reported it to the Parliament. The Council finally agreed to review the request and to report back on the measures taken to implement the new rules on access to documents. (0917/2000/GG).

Contractual disputes

The Commission agreed to change a contract to take all the project costs into account after the Ombudsman intervened in the case. A French company, together with universities from Belgium, Spain and France, had signed the contract with the Commission for an Information Society Technologies project. Due to inconsistencies in the contract, certain items that had been negotiated and agreed could not be funded. The Commission acknowledged that the problem was caused by mutual misunderstandings and agreed to make the change. To avoid similar situations in the future, it said it would reduce the number of standard contracts and simplify them. (0114/2002/ADB)

The Commission settled a claim worth over € 1.5 million after the Ombudsman called on it to take action. The UK-based firm involved had worked on a technical assistance project in Nigeria. It suffered extensive financial loss when the Commission unilaterally suspended all aid for projects in Nigeria. It claimed compensation from the Commission. The latter argued that it was not the correct addressee and that the claim should have been addressed to the Nigerian government. The Ombudsman found that there was no valid justification for most of the six year delay in settling the case and called on the Commission to propose a settlement. (0444/2000/ME)

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. (1131/2000/JMA)

Problems with calls for tender

The Ombudsman criticised the Commission for failing to ensure compliance with the rules laid down under tender procedures. An Irish company had bid for the tender ─ worth € 2.5 million ─ to provide agricultural services in South Russia. It complained to the Ombudsman, claiming that the German company that won the tender had broken the rules. The Ombudsman agreed that the way the German company had submitted its bid did not comply with the rules. (0834/2001/GG)

Late payment

The Ombudsman secured a € 30,000 payment for a French Regional Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The complainant had applied to the Commission for financial aid to identify foreign partners for French companies in the automobile industry. It claimed that the Commission took an abnormally long time to deal with the file and disputed the amount that it was willing to pay. After the Ombudsman intervened, the Commission proposed a settlement that was accepted by the complainant. It explained that the delay was due to a shortage of personnel and various internal restructuring procedures, as well as to the decision to terminate the programme in question. (0108/2002/OV)

Discrimination

The Parliament agreed to reclassify several Portuguese officials after the Ombudsman discovered that they had been discriminated against. The officials had sat and passed a competition organised jointly by the Parliament and the Court of Justice. The Parliament recruited them using rules introduced in 1995. Other candidates who had passed the same competition were recruited under the pre-1995 rules. As a result, the complainants were recruited at a lower grade than their colleagues even though they had sat and passed the same competition. The Ombudsman called on Parliament to reclassify the complainants with effect from the date of their appointment. (1371/99/IP)

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. The examination is still ongoing.

Failure to reply

The Commission agreed to cover the cost of a town-twinning project after criticism from the Ombudsman. The responsible committee from Bad Honnef in Germany and Ludvika in Sweden had applied for a grant under the Commission’s town-twinning programme. It received oral assurances that the application had been accepted. More than three months after the relevant programme had been closed, the Commission announced that the application had been rejected. The Ombudsman underlined that it is good administrative practice to handle applications carefully and properly. (0344/2001/(MM)GG)

Problems with infringement cases

The Commission apologised to a Danish citizen after it admitted that it had failed to deal properly with his infringement complaint. The citizen had alleged that Denmark may have breached Community law on the taxing of ECU bonds. He waited for more than six years for his complaint to be dealt with. In response to the Ombudsman's investigation, the Commission stated that the infringement complaint had been formally registered and would be dealt with under the Commission's new improved rules for handling such complaints. These rules had been introduced following earlier calls from the Ombudsman for the Commission to improve its procedure. (0055/2002/PB)

The Ombudsman criticised the Commission over its handling of a complaint about the alleged infringement of Community environmental law by the Greek authorities. The complaint was lodged by 24 inhabitants of a Greek village and concerned the building of a biological treatment plant and sewerage system in their village. The Ombudsman found that the Commission misinformed the complainants and kept fundamental information concealed from them. It also failed to ensure that the case was dealt with impartially and properly. The Commission adopted rules on relations with the complainant in infringement cases to avoid similar problems in the future. (1288/99/OV)

Irregularities in recruitment

The Commission annulled a selection procedure after the Ombudsman informed it about irregularities. An Italian citizen had complained to him after she participated in a competition for the Joint Research Centre at Ispra. The Ombudsman's investigation revealed economic interests between a member of the Selection Board and one of the successful candidates. The Commission agreed that the equal opportunity of all candidates had not been guaranteed. (1452/2001/IP)

 

To read about these, and other, cases dealt with by the Ombudsman, please visit:
http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/decision/en/default.htm