---

Your Excellency Síndic de Greuges,
Your Excellency,
Your Honourable Guests,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a matter of great personal satisfaction to be able to celebrate with you, with some anticipation, Europe Day. And this in Barcelona, a symbol of a city with a pro-European vocation and openness.

Before I begin, I will be able to express my public gratitude to Antón Cañellas, whose task as Síndic de Greuges de Cataluña has always been an example for all the Ombudsmen. Dear Anton, thank you that without your tenacity and support this act could not have taken place. I would also like to acknowledge here the great help provided by the delegations of Parliament and the European Commission, and for that I would like to thank their representatives, Mr Ribot and Mr Coll.

I pronounce these words before such an important audience after having held the position of European Ombudsman for almost seven years. In this period I have had the privilege of visiting Catalonia on numerous occasions to explain my work. With all this experience, it is now possible to indicate the milestones of the path traveled and the road ahead.

To this end, a number of important documents have been distributed, including:

- The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
- the new European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour; and
- a brochure on the activities of the European Ombudsman.

The idea of a Citizens' Europe was strongly promoted in the southern European countries in the 1980s. For this reason, it was natural for the Spanish government to put forward, within the framework of the reform of the treaties in 1991, a coherent proposal in this regard. In that project, the Spanish government proposed a long list of European citizens' rights, the implementation of which should be monitored by the European Ombudsman at all levels of the European Union.

The Spanish proposal was partially accepted in Maastricht in 1993. Only a reduced list of rights of European citizens was introduced in the Treaty on European Union. Of these, the most important are the broad right to freedom of movement, to reside and work in the Member States; the right to elect and be elected in municipal elections, and also in elections to the European Parliament when the citizen is resident in any country of the Union.

Two new constitutional rights were also introduced in the Maastricht Treaty: on the one hand, the right to send petitions to the European Parliament on any matter relating to the activities of the European Union and at any level of the Union, whether supranational, national, regional or local, and on the other hand, the right to lodge complaints with the European Ombudsman. It should be noted that the mandate of the European Ombudsman was limited only to instances of alleged maladministration in the activities of the Community institutions and bodies. This means that a citizen, an organisation or a company can submit their complaints when they consider that the acts of the community administration are unsatisfactory or deficient.

However, the Member States did not accept any supervision by the European Ombudsman of the activities of the administrations of the Member States themselves, even when they applied Community law. I would remind you that this type of action is very important as Community law is a decentralised right. This means that its implementation and development does not depend on Brussels, but on the national administrations of each Member State. In this area, the citizen can submit complaints to the European Commission, in its role as guardian of the Treaties, or send a petition to the European Parliament, or to the competent Ombudsman in the Member State. Of course this will depend on the type of complaint.

Dear friends,

This was the situation when I started my work as the first European Ombudsman on 1 September 1995 (905).

But where are we now? What happened to the Spanish dream or vision of 1991?

The aspirations of rights for citizens that Spain raised at that time have been well reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights proclaimed in Nice. For me, it represents the fundamental principles and rights which must be respected by Community law, as laid down in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union.

The three Community institutions, Parliament, the Commission and the Council, whose Presidents proclaimed the Charter, must set a good example by applying its provisions and principles in their regular activities. This was recently demonstrated around the issue of abolishing age limits in recruitment procedures for community administration.

The Nice Charter proclaims the right of everyone to seek employment (Article 15) and the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of age (Article 21). In view of this recognition, I decided to initiate an ex officio investigation into the issue of age discrimination in community recruitment. I sought to put an end to any possible discriminatory situation which was not sufficiently justified. I asked all EU institutions and bodies for details on their practice and the possible justification for it.

Both the President of the European Parliament, Mr Cox, and the President of the European Commission, Mr Prodi, formally confirmed to the European Ombudsman that they will respect the provisions and principles of the Charter in the activities of their institutions. And they have already shown this in practice by abolishing age limits in this respect.

For its part, the Council of Ministers and its administration have doubts about this matter. His reasoning seems to remain that the Charter is "a mere political statement" and therefore does not have to be adhered to. I believe that European citizens have the right to expect that a Charter which was solemnly proclaimed in Nice in December 2000 by the highest authorities of the Union should be respected by all who have the power to do so. This will undoubtedly strengthen relations between the European Union and its citizens.

The opposite, in other words, for politicians to be able to declare and promise substantial progress to citizens, but not to feel committed to delivering when the time comes, would be bad for the future of the Union and for its relations with citizens.

I therefore hope that the Council of Ministers will reconsider its position and undertake to respect the fundamental rights enshrined in the Nice Charter, including those of an administrative nature, in its activities. By doing so, they would be reaffirming their vocation at the service of European citizens.

For my part, I have tried to follow the line of respect for the Nice Charter, as you can see when I refer to my work later in this exhibition.

Although fundamental rights are enshrined in the constitutions or human rights conventions that Member States have undertaken to respect, the binding effect of the Nice Charter is still an open issue and their views on this matter differ.

The Convention on the Future of Europe is also examining this matter while drafting a constitutional treaty for the Union. The opinions of the.

Let me now explain my activities in more detail:

The European Ombudsman's most important task is to promote good administration in the action of any Community institution or body. It is important to note here that good administration is a fundamental right of citizens as enshrined in Article 41 of the Nice Charter. According to this Article, everyone has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially and within a reasonable time by the institutions and bodies of the Union. To this end, this action must respect:

- the right to be heard,
- the right of every person to have access to a file which may affect him or her, and
- the obligation to give reasons for administrative decisions.

Moreover, the right to good administration also requires that:

- any person who has suffered damage caused by the Community institutions and their servants may claim compensation and
- the right to address the institutions of the Union in one of the twelve languages of the Treaties and to receive a reply in the same language.

My mandate extends to the actions of the Community institutions and bodies, including all agencies and even Europol. In the case of Community courts, I have jurisdiction only to conduct investigations into their administrative proceedings.

While the central element of my work is to avoid maladministration, the European Parliament asked me to define this concept. The definition I proposed in my 1997 Annual Report, which Parliament and the Commission accepted, was as follows:

Maladministration occurs when a public body does not act in accordance with the rules or principles to which it is obliged to adhere.

In my view, this concept must include respect for human rights. There is no doubt that among the norms and principles that inform the action of any Community body or institution are the fundamental human rights enshrined in the Nice Charter. From the perspective of the European Ombudsman, I have stated that the violation of the rights of the Nice Charter must therefore be regarded as maladministration.

* * *

The Ombudsman usually hears alleged cases of maladministration through complaints lodged by citizens. The institution, however, also has the possibility to carry out investigations ex officio.

Any European citizen or resident in one of the Member States is entitled to lodge complaints with the Ombudsman. So are companies, associations or other bodies with an office registered in the territory of the Union. Complaints must be submitted in writing, either by letter or by electronic message. This can be done directly or through a Member of the European Parliament.

The examination of complaints submitted to the Ombudsman is public, unless the complainant requests their confidentiality. It is important that the Ombudsman acts with maximum transparency, setting an example to others, so that European citizens can understand his work.

In statistical terms, since the beginning of my mandate and until the end of 2001, I have received almost 9000 complaints, of which 14% came from Spain. During 2001, almost 1900 were received, of which 30 per cent were within the scope of my mandate.

I decided to initiate investigations in 204 of those cases, in addition to 4 ex officio initiatives. Most of the complaints were directed against the European Commission (77%). The Commission is the Community institution whose decisions often have a direct impact on citizens, so it is logical that this institution is the main subject of their complaints. The causes of maladministration in these cases were mainly lack of transparency, discrimination, abuse of power and unjustified delays.

In the same year, 80 cases were resolved by the institutions or bodies themselves, following the opening of the inquiry by the Ombudsman. A critical comment was addressed to the institution or body responsible in 46 cases. A friendly settlement was reached in 2 cases. Thirteen draft recommendations were prepared for the institutions or bodies concerned, 10 of which were accepted (6 of which had been submitted during the year 2000). In 4 cases draft recommendations were submitted, while in 2 cases a special report was addressed to the European Parliament.

You have, among the documentation that has been distributed to you, a brief statistical note that can illustrate these figures. All this information, as well as the various publications and annual reports of the Ombudsman can be found on the website of the institution, whose address I have also included in the documentation.

In order to improve the management of complaints received and in particular inadmissible complaints, for years I have been working on the creation of a network of ombudsmen and similar bodies, at the national, regional and local levels, within the framework of the European Union. When you visit our website, you will find links to all those institutions that have their own website. It should be noted that the Sindic de Greuges, Mr Antón Cañellas, played an essential role in these cooperation activities by organising, in 1997, the first meeting of regional ombudsmen in the city of Barcelona.

The purpose of this network of defenders is to enable any European citizen to have a competent, professional complaints service at his or her fingertips, in the event that he or she has a conflict relating to Community law, with the authorities of any Member State or with its administration. Once this network is fully operational, we can say that Spain's vision of Europe in 1991 will be closer to reality.

* * *

They will allow me to detail below three areas in which the institution has carried out important work: the development of a Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, respect for human rights and the promotion of transparency.

 

European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour

For the right to good administration to become a reality for citizens, it is necessary for them to know what their rights are with regard to administration and for officials to know what action is expected of them. This is only possible by formally reflecting those rights and obligations in a written text, either through a code or through a law.

To this end, I initiated an ex officio investigation in 1998. As a result, my services drafted a Code of Good Administrative Behaviour for Community institutions and bodies. The relevant resolution adopted by the European Parliament on 6 September 2001 included a Code based on my proposal, and its contents must be respected by the institutions and bodies of the Union, as well as by their officials, in their relations with citizens.

Parliament's resolution requires the European Ombudsman to apply the Code in order to check whether or not there is maladministration, thereby giving effect to Article 41 of the Charter, which proclaims the right of citizens to good administration.

The resolution also invites the European Commission to submit a proposal for a regulation, i.e. a European law, of good administrative behaviour. These laws exist in most EU Member States.

In Spain, for example, the Law on Administrative Procedure amended in 1999 regulates the procedure of public administrations and contemplates how the public administration and its officials should behave in their relations with their citizens.

Despite the opinion of the European Parliament, and my own recommendations, the European Commission has not yet put forward any proposal for such a European administrative law.

 

Defence of human rights

In my daily work, human rights have not been marginal, but have been a constant concern. Of the complaints and ex officio inquiries that the European Ombudsman has launched in recent times, the most relevant have been aimed at defending fundamental rights, in particular those enshrined in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.

I will briefly mention some of these initiatives aimed at defending rights, such as:

- non-discrimination on grounds of sex in the selection of national experts;

- the elimination of any racial prejudice in community recruitment procedures;

- the freedom of expression of Community officials;

- respect for the right to good administration in the handling of complaints sent by citizens to the European Commission as guardian of the Treaties; or

- the exclusion of age-based discrimination in community recruitment.

I would like to point out that substantial progress has been made so far, but there is still a lot of work to be done before the Charter becomes a living reality in the Community administration.

 

Transparency

The European Union often talks about measures to increase transparency, but effective progress seems difficult to make.

In my opinion, transparency implies:

(a) that the decision-making processes are comprehensible,
(b) that the decisions themselves are reasoned,
(c) that, as far as possible, the information on which those decisions are based is accessible to the public and
(d) that meetings of public bodies that take decisions on matters of direct impact on citizens are open and public, so that they can follow them and listen to the arguments raised therein.

It would also be practical for proposals to be subject to public debate prior to such meetings.

I would now like to refer to three particular areas in which I have tried to achieve the objective of transparency: access to documents, the recruitment of Community officials and the monitoring of Community law.

Public access to documents: Since 1993, the Council and the Commission had adopted a Code of Conduct governing public access to their documents. However, this practice had not been followed by the other Community institutions and bodies. In order to remedy this shortcoming, I initiated an ex officio investigation in 1996. As a result, all Community institutions and bodies, including agencies and even Europol, have already adopted their own rules on public access to documents.

The Treaty of Amsterdam introduced the principle that all decisions in the European Union should be taken as transparently as possible. It also provides for the adoption of a Regulation on public access to documents. This regulation entered into force in December 2001. This will make it possible for the Council, Parliament, the Commission and other institutions to work more openly. We still do not have enough experience to evaluate the results. Unfortunately, there are some indications that the institutions have used the new data protection regulation in such a way as to suggest that they are not yet fully convinced of the benefits of open administration.

Recruitment Procedures: The lack of transparency in community recruitment has always been difficult for most people to understand. I decided to launch an investigation in this regard given the high number of complaints received.

As a result of that investigation, I sent a special report to the European Parliament, in which I insisted on recommending that in future competitions called by the European Commission, the institution should allow candidates who request it access to their own corrected tests. The President of the European Commission undertook to follow this recommendation. At the end of 2000, Parliament adopted a resolution urging all Community institutions and bodies to follow the example of the Commission.

Monitoring the application of Community law: The purpose of this investigation was to ensure the rights of complainants in proceedings brought by the Commission against Member States for breach of Community law. In most cases this procedure was initiated as a result of a previous complaint by citizens. In many complaints to the Ombudsman, these complainants expressed widespread dissatisfaction with the Commission's slow procedure and its lack of transparency.

I suggested to the Commission to make its handling of citizens' complaints more transparent and to give a number of procedural guarantees to the complainant. The Commission undertook to take a decision on the existence of an infringement within one year. Before making an archiving decision, he also guaranteed that he would turn to the whistleblower for his opinion. The Commission recently adopted regulations on the administrative procedure for dealing with complaints sent to it by citizens in their role as guardian of the Treaty. This is a step forward on the path of good administration.

Experience shows us that open administration, such as that which exists in many Member States, appears to be an effective tool against fraud and corruption, while closed and confidential treatment of public affairs offers opportunities for them. I am concerned that those who oppose the ever-increasing demands for openness overlook this very essential issue. Despite their arguments and reasons, their stubborn opposition to the necessary openness of the EU administration makes the fight against fraud and corruption more difficult.

Dear friends,

The ideal of a citizens' Europe was a vision of a European Union where fundamental rights and the rule of law were respected. In addition, I am convinced that citizens aspire to an open, honest and service-oriented administration. This objective requires hard work, as it has not yet been fully achieved.

Thank you very much for your attention.