European Ombudsman

Friday, 23 October 2015, 9.00-9.30

Good morning everyone, and thank you for inviting me to address you.

We last met, collectively, in February 2014, when I was barely five months into my new job. Now just over two years into the role, it’s opportune for us to discuss again.

I have of course met some of you bilaterally and found these exchanges genuinely informative. And some of you have heard from me on paper through requests for opinions, recommendations and decisions. I’ll touch on some of these cases today but let me start with a few words on what I am trying to do with the office I have been charged with leading.

I am acutely aware of the specific role that I have been elected, and re-elected, by Parliament to fulfil under the Treaty and under the Charter. The European Ombudsman is expected to, within its mandate, support our emerging European citizenship. Transparency, democratic accountability and public trust are central to that citizenship.

Citizen engagement and scrutiny of all of our offices is increasing, especially at times of turbulence such as now. Much is expected of us, and rightly so. Are we equipped to deliver? European citizens expect the Union to ensure safe and effective medicines, to guarantee a problem-free food chain, to warn them of hazardous chemicals, to secure aviation safety, to protect their environment, to police the Union’s external borders, to make sure that the money they save in the bank is secure. But the EU is not a federal state. The European Commission has been at pains to point out, in the wake of the Volkswagen scandal, that it does not police car emissions in the Member States. The European Medicines Agency does not have the powers that the US Food and Drug Administration has. The European Chemicals Agency does not have the resources to verify the safety of all chemicals registered in the EU. Frontex cannot safe the lives of all those desperately trying to reach our shores.

And so, when things go wrong, when people die, when companies lie, we need to at least be secure in the knowledge that, within the legal, political and resource constraints which guide our work, we have done the very best we can, with the public interest always front and centre.

I would like to explain to you about my own strategy. As the Ombudsman celebrates its 20^th anniversary, I want to make the office - with our 70 staff and 10 million Euro budget - quite simply, more useful and more relevant. To this end, my strategy aims to use our limited resources in a highly strategic way by identifying those areas of EU public administration where we can secure the most effective outcomes for the citizen and indeed for the public administration itself. In dealing with these issues, my colleagues and I try to be rigorous, fair, and also understanding of the often very challenging environment in which you operate.

Alongside the streamlining of our complaints procedure in order to get faster and better outcomes for complainants, I am also conducting a series of strategic inquiries in which we examine more systemic issues of possible maladministration. In doing so, I hope not just to help the administration to solve a difficulty, but also to stop or at least reduce repeat complaints on a particular issue. I am well aware that responding to complaints can be a resource-intensive and time-consuming exercise. And I have seen, from looking at the programme for your two-day meeting, that making the best use of the resources that have been put at your disposal is your top concern too.

I am also aware that the Ombudsman is not the only EU institution that plays a scrutiny role. I see from your programme that I am in the good company of Members of the European Parliament from the budget control committee, a committee I have very good relations with, as well as representatives of the European Court of Auditors. I also note that you will be examining the recent Court judgment relating to the European Food Safety Authority and what that means for transparency and data protection as regards your external experts.

I would, however, like to mention two strategic inquiries that I have conducted because I believe they are of particular interest to you. Both concern the Commission. The first looked at how the Commission deals with the so-called 'revolving door' challenge whereby officials leave the Commission and take up private sector roles. The second is examining how the Commission ensures transparency and balance in terms of its system of Expert Groups. Both inquiries come under the common theme of ‘influence’, seeking answers to questions such as: who are the key influencers in EU decision-making, how are laws and other decisions made, who or what has brought their thinking or interest to bear on what ultimately emerges from the legislative or regulatory process.

A further example of this work concerns the European Central Bank and an exchange I had with President Draghi over the past few months, which led to the Bank adopting speaking engagement guidelines for the members of its Executive Board.

These questions are relevant to many of you. Having looked at the inquiries carried out in relation to the agencies since I began as European Ombudsman in October 2013, I note that questions of revolving doors, external expertise, stakeholder input, transparency and access to documents come up frequently. Specifically on the issue of external expertise, I would encourage you to examine the next step in my expert groups inquiry that I hope to publish in the coming weeks. Similarly, my recent decision on DG Agriculture’s Civil Dialogue Groups contains material that is relevant to your work. Given the number of inquiries that have been opened as regards agencies’ working groups, stakeholder fora and scientific panels, it will be important, going forward, to determine whether some of the key findings in these inquiries are relevant to how your agency functions.

As European Ombudsman, I also chair a network of Ombudsmen at national, regional, and petitions committee level. Again, in order to make this aspect of my work as useful as possible, I have begun to explore ways in which we can conduct parallel inquiries into matters that have both national and EU relevance. As the Frontex representatives present today know well, we worked over the past year on the subject of joint operations with member states that return those refused asylum in the EU to their own or a third country. I hope to develop this method of collaborative working with my colleagues so that together we can provide an even better service for the citizens of the EU. Already we are exploring ways in which we can be of some service in the current migration crisis, and particularly in that area of the protection of fundamental rights.

This brings me to a second category of cases that concern what I would call your core business: from a refused marketing authorisation for an anti-migraine medicine to the sensitive area of testing on animals in the evaluation of chemicals; from the actions involved in renewing the EU authorisation of a particular pesticide to your work on the Europass CV. As part of this latter inquiry, I had an opportunity to focus on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. As a member of the Framework charged with monitoring the implementation of the Convention by the EU administration, I would urge you to see to it that the rights and principles enshrined in the Convention are embedded in the work you do.

Finally, there is a residual, but in no way negligible as far as raw statistics are concerned, category of personnel-related cases that I will not go into now but that do, at times, raise sensitive and delicate issues, including harassment, discrimination and unfair dismissal. I am not convinced that my office is always best placed to deal with such cases. If they can be effectively dealt with internally, by staff mediators for example, or with the help of external experts so much the better for all concerned in my view.

This leads me to my final point, which concerns relations generally between the Ombudsman and the agencies going forward. Continuing the theme I raised at the outset, I am keen to ensure that our interactions are conducted in the most effective way. This is why I am particularly pleased to address you collectively. I am also happy to note that my new Secretary-General, Ms. Beate Gminder, will be speaking to the Heads of Administration of the Agencies in February and that a number of Ombudsman presentations have been made to the InterAgency Legal Network. If there are other agency networks that my Office could usefully address, please let us know.

This idea of addressing you collectively is one of the many ideas that my staff came forward with in the report that we produced to conclude the series of visits conducted by my predecessor to a range of agencies. Not all of these ideas are feasible or realistic in the short term but I am keen to hear from you as to what you think might be particularly helpful. I would mention the following, in particular:

i) The Ombudsman could focus on one particular issue, a “thematic approach”, such as that adopted in the inquiry in relation to disclosure of the names of selection board members. The outcome could be ‘good practice guidelines’ for the agencies in relevant areas, for example revolving doors or access to documents, with the underlying idea being to pre-empt complaints and promote good administration.

ii) The use of videoconferencing could be explored for agencies that are the subject of a lot of complaints or new agencies that could benefit from an early meeting with Ombudsman staff on issues like recruitment. Also, whenever someone from my office conducts an inspection at an agency, I have asked them to propose a presentation on the role of the Ombudsman, notably for agencies that might not know our work so well. Similarly, I have encouraged middle management to visit agencies to share expertise on good administration. I also intend, when I go to a particular Member State, to include a meeting with the relevant agency, like my office is currently arranging for my upcoming trips to Austria and Hungary.

iii) From our side, we would welcome presentations from your offices so that we can engage with you directly to understand the challenges you face. In this vein, I would invite you and your staff to make use of the many missions you make to Brussels, and perhaps, Strasbourg, to address my services. We would like to hear, at first hand, about the work you do and the challenges you face, rather than addressing such matters only through complaints brought to our attention.

While we might not have time to discuss all of these possibilities today, I hope that you will follow up with us in the coming weeks. Your honest feedback and further ideas are welcome.

I want to conclude by reiterating that I see my role as that of supporting not just the citizens of the Union but also the EU public administration. I seek to work as co-operatively and openly as possible with those representing the administration and those staff working within the institutions.

As I have said many times before, although the media never mention it, I am struck by the quality and integrity of the individuals who work in and lead the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. I welcome this encounter in that spirit and I am happy to answer any questions you may have, or listen to any observations on our work.

Thank you.