The background to the complaint

1. The present case concerns an alleged ban on access to the European Parliament's (hereinafter 'Parliament') library and other premises which the latter imposed on the complainant.

2. The complainant is an Italian citizen who describes himself as an "independent policy maker"[1]. He has followed Parliament's work for many years.

3. On 25 January 2008, Parliament decided to prohibit the complainant from accessing its library "until further notice". Parliament based its decision on (i) the complainant's allegedly inappropriate behaviour towards the library personnel, and (ii) his alleged lack of respect for the library rules, as approved by Parliament's Bureau on 3 May 2004[2] (hereinafter the '2004 Library Rules'), including copyright rules.

4. On 26 February 2008, when attempting to enter Parliament's library, the complainant, a permanent visitor[3], was denied access. Parliament reiterated the above-mentioned reasons for its decision to deny him access.

5. One day earlier, namely, on 25 February 2008, the complainant had submitted to Parliament a request for the renewal of his annual visitor's permit. Parliament rejected his request on 4 April 2008 on the grounds that the complainant had breached the 2004 Library Rules on several occasions. Parliament also informed him that its Security Service had decided completely to ban him from entering Parliament's premises.

6. The complainant turned to Parliament on 3 March 2008 and subsequently on 12 April and 15 May 2008, alleging that the 2004 Library Rules were unclear and discriminatory. He also complained about the behaviour of the personnel of Parliament's library and expressed criticism concerning Parliament's above-mentioned decision of 4 April 2008.

7. Following an alleged invitation from Ms L, who at the time was an Italian Member of Parliament (hereinafter 'MEP'), the complainant travelled to Brussels and tried to enter Parliament's premises there on 28 May 2008. However, he was denied access.

8. On 12 September 2008, the complainant turned to the European Ombudsman.

The subject matter of the inquiry

9. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the following allegations and claims.

Allegations:

1. Parliament failed to provide the complainant with a satisfactory reply to his correspondence of 3 March, 12 April and 15 May 2008, in which he (i) alleged that the 2004 Library Rules were unclear and discriminatory, and (ii) complained against the behaviour of the personnel of the Library.

2. Parliament unduly extended the prohibition imposed on the complainant to enter Parliament's library to cover all Parliament buildings.

3. The decision denying the complainant access to Parliament's buildings was not limited in time.

4. Parliament failed to take into account that the complainant had been invited to Parliament buildings by MEP L, when it denied him access to Parliament's building on 28 May 2008.

Claims:

1. The complainant should be reimbursed for the expenses he incurred from 28 to 30 May 2008 when he went to Brussels following the invitation of MEP L.

2. The complainant's name should be removed from the "black list" of those who cannot have access to Parliament's buildings and he should be indemnified for having been placed on that list.

The inquiry

10. On 24 November 2008, the Ombudsman asked Parliament for an opinion on the complaint. Parliament's opinion was forwarded to the complainant with an invitation to make observations, which he sent on 5 May 2009. The Ombudsman's services asked the complainant for further information concerning his complaint on 6 July 2010. On 24 September 2010, the complainant informed the Ombudsman that, in the meantime, he had sent supplementary information to Parliament concerning his professional situation and the reasons why he was interested in obtaining a long-term visitor's pass. On 22 November 2010, the Ombudsman's services contacted the complainant again and asked him whether he had received a reply from Parliament. The complainant replied that he had not yet contacted Parliament, but would consider doing so in the near future.

11. On 16 July 2012, the Ombudsman's services inspected Parliament's file regarding the complainant's case. A copy of the inspection report was forwarded to the complainant with an invitation to submit observations. The complainant submitted his observations on the report on 5 September 2012.

The Ombudsman's analysis and conclusions

Preliminary remarks

12. The Ombudsman points out that the scope of the present inquiry is defined by the allegations and claims identified in his letter to the complainant dated 24 November 2008, and reproduced in point 9 above. In his observations on Parliament's opinion, the complainant raised certain further issues. First, he pointed out that discriminatory practices between what he referred to as user groups 'A' and 'B' of the library should be abolished. Second, in his view, Parliament should send its decisions to the persons concerned in a language understandable to them. Third, books held by the Parliament library should be placed at the disposal of all citizens. Fourth, there should be a right to be heard and a right to appeal against decisions taken by Parliament. Fifth, in the complainant's view, the Ombudsman should make sure that Parliament organises regular and independent polls on the level of satisfaction of all those using Parliament's services. The Ombudsman emphasises that, pursuant to Article 2(4) of his Statute, complaints to him must be preceded by appropriate administrative approaches to the institution concerned. The complainant must therefore first turn to Parliament before the Ombudsman can possibly deal with these issues. However, it does not appear that the complainant has done so.

13. As a second preliminary remark, the Ombudsman notes that the complainant's second and third allegation are closely connected. Therefore, in the analysis that follows, they will be dealt with together.

A. Allegation that Parliament failed to provide the complainant with a satisfactory reply to his correspondence

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

14. The complainant alleged that Parliament failed to provide him with a satisfactory reply to his communications of 3 March, 12 April and 15 May 2008 in which he (i) alleged that the 2004 Library Rules were unclear and discriminatory, and (ii) complained about the behaviour of the personnel of the library.

15. In its opinion, Parliament stated that, according to its internal rules, only small extracts from books may be photocopied. This information is communicated in the library by means of a notice in English and in French featuring prominently above each photocopier. In this respect, Parliament also referred to the 2004 Library Rules, from which it emerges that the library's mission is primarily to serve MEPs, their staff, Parliament officials and others who work at Parliament, such as the staff of political groups. Visitors and lobbyists have no right to use the library, and these rules are displayed at the entrance of the library's reading room.

16. Parliament further specifically referred to Article 3 of the 2004 Library Rules, which provides for the possibility to ask unauthorised users to leave the library. Article 6 of the 2004 Library Rules, moreover, lays down a duty to observe copyright rules and instructions or guidance received from library staff. According to Article 7, any person who infringes the rules may be denied access to the library.

17. Regarding the complainant's comments about the behaviour of the library personnel, Parliament stated that it was the complainant who behaved abusively towards the library staff. On 26 February 2008, the complainant himself acknowledged that he had been rude towards the library staff and sought to justify his behaviour by explaining that he was rude to everyone.

18. In his observations, the complainant maintained his view that the 2004 Library Rules were unclear and of a generic character. The complainant further referred to the allegedly improper behaviour of Mr B, acting Library Director, and stated that it was not he who had behaved in an abusive manner towards the library staff. In addition, he submitted that, in general, Parliament's personnel should be more courteous towards visitors to its premises. The personnel should also be properly informed and trained so as to ensure their maximum availability for a dialogue with citizens. With regard to Parliament's reference to copyright rules, the complainant took the view that the library's personnel should not violate the users' privacy by monitoring which books they consult, print or copy. In his observations on the inspection report, the complainant further took the view that the copyright rules had not been defined and made public in 2008, when the events here concerned took place.

The Ombudsman's assessment

19. As regards the issue of the allegedly unclear character of the 2004 Library Rules, the Ombudsman notes that, in its replies to his e-mails dated 3 March, 12 April and 15 May 2008, Parliament did not specifically address the issue raised by the complainant. However, in its opinion, Parliament explained the relevant parts of the 2004 Library Rules, and, in particular, the rules concerning visitors and their rights and obligations.

20. The Ombudsman further notes that Article 6 of the 2004 Library Rules reads as follows:

"Copying, printing and transmission facilities are available exclusively for reasonable use for parliamentary purposes, and subject to observance of copyright regulations.

Access to these facilities is at the discretion of the Library and users must comply with any operational instructions or guidance by Library staff."

21. Article 3 of the 2004 Library Rules lists the persons who are authorised to use the library. It reads as follows:

"The following shall have access to the services of the Library on-site and online:

(a) Members of the European Parliament and their formally registered assistants and trainees;

(b) Officials and temporary staff of the European Parliament Secretariat;

(c) Political group staff;

(d) Formally registered trainees, grant-holders and auxiliaries at the European Parliament;

(e) Members and officials of other European Union institutions;

(f) Such other persons as may receive prior authorisation from the official in charge.

Any other person may be asked to leave the premises immediately and to surrender all copies and prints made in the Library. ..."

22. As to the duties of library users, the relevant parts of Article 7 of the 2004 Library Rules lay down the following:

"Out of consideration for others, users are asked:

- to respect any request made by Library staff; [and]

- to use Library services only for the purposes of their work in Parliament; ...

The Library reserves the right to limit or prohibit access to any person who infringes any of the present rules."

23. The complainant did not challenge Parliament's statement that these rules were displayed at the entrance of the library's reading room. In light of the explanations provided by Parliament in its opinion and the wording of the above-mentioned provisions, the Ombudsman concludes that Parliament has provided a sufficiently clear outline of the applicable rules, the contents of which appear to be readily understandable. As regards the complainant's view that these rules are discriminatory, the Ombudsman notes that, in his correspondence, the complainant simply alleged that he was not given the opportunity to defend himself, but he did not substantiate why he considers these rules to be discriminatory. In any event, it appears reasonable for Parliament to take the view that the use of its library should in principle be reserved to the categories of persons mentioned in Article 3 of the 2004 Library Rules. Concerning the complainant's view that the copyright rules were not defined and made public in 2008, the inspection of the file has shown that the complainant was informed of these rules on several occasions in the library and was also given a copy thereof in his mother tongue. The Ombudsman therefore considers that, in the course of the inquiry, Parliament has satisfactorily addressed the complainant's comments made in his letters of 3 March, 12 April and 15 May 2008, according to which the 2004 Library Rules are unclear and discriminatory.

24. As regards the complainant's comments about the behaviour of the library personnel, it appears that, in its decision of 25 January 2008, by means of which the complainant was denied access to the library until further notice, Parliament based itself on (i) the complainant's own behaviour and (ii) his lack of respect for the 2004 Library rules, including copyright rules. Mr S, a Parliament official, also referred to these reasons in an e-mail he sent to the complainant on 28 May 2008. In its opinion, Parliament reiterated this view. In his observations, the complainant took the view that it was actually Mr B, the acting Director, who had been rude.

25. The Ombudsman notes that the inspection of the file has shown that, before his access to Parliament's buildings had been denied, several members of Parliament's library staff perceived the complainant's behaviour to have been improper or even verbally aggressive. In any event, the Ombudsman takes the view that asking unauthorised visitors to leave the library does not constitute unprofessional conduct, in particular if such visitors are found copying entire books. While there continues to be some disagreement between the complainant and Parliament as to whose behaviour was improper, Parliament's position would appear to be borne out by the inspected documents. The complainant, on the other hand, did not substantiate his views. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman concludes that Parliament's view is convincing. As regards the complainant's view that the library's personnel should not violate users' privacy by monitoring which books they consult, print or copy, the Ombudsman takes the view that Parliament must be considered to be entitled to observe compliance with the 2004 Library Rules, including Article 6[4] thereof. The complainant's arguments to the contrary are therefore not convincing.

26. In light of the foregoing, the Ombudsman concludes that there are no grounds for further inquiries into the first allegation.

B. Allegations that Parliament unduly (i) extended the prohibition to enter its library to cover all its buildings and (ii) refrained from limiting that prohibition in time and the second claim

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

27. The complainant alleged that Parliament unduly extended the prohibition imposed on him to enter Parliament's library to cover all Parliament buildings. In his view, that decision was not justified, given that he had not caused any danger for security. He also questioned how it was possible to impose such a far-reaching prohibition on a European citizen who wished to follow Parliament's public sessions, and wondered whether his name had been put on a 'black list'. The complainant further considered that the decision that Parliament took concerning his inclusion in such a 'black list' was not limited in time, as it should have been.

28. In its opinion, Parliament stated, with reference to Annex IX to Parliament's Rules of Procedure, that the complainant had only been suspended as a permanent visitor to its premises. It rejected the complainant's view that it has a 'black list'. Finally, Parliament stated that the complainant may still access its premises as a daily or weekly guest, provided that he is invited by a person or a parliamentary body who must accompany him "at all times during the entire period of his visit" to Parliament's premises.

29. In his observations, the complainant essentially maintained his complaint.

Further developments

30. By e-mail of 12 October 2009, the complainant informed the Ombudsman that Parliament had granted him access to its buildings. In view of these circumstances, he considered that Parliament's 'black list' must have been "updated".

31. In the same e-mail, the complainant also informed the Ombudsman that he intended to apply for the renewal of his annual visitor's permit. The complainant submitted his renewal application to Parliament on 13 October 2009.

32. On 2 March 2010, the complainant lodged a new complaint with the Ombudsman, which was registered under reference number 538/2010/IP. In that complaint, he alleged that Parliament failed to reply to his request to obtain an annual visitor's permit. The Ombudsman's services subsequently made contact with Parliament and they were informed that Parliament had replied to the complainant on 19 March 2010. In its reply, Parliament expressed its willingness to grant the complainant a new visitor's permit for six months, provided that he submitted the necessary information to Parliament. On the basis of Parliament's reply, the Ombudsman closed his inquiry into complaint 538/2010/IP on 30 March 2010.

33. In light of the above circumstances and given that Parliament was willing to provide the complainant with a visitor's permit for six months, it was not clear whether the complainant wished to maintain his present complaint. By letter of 8 July 2010, the Ombudsman therefore asked the complainant whether he wished to pursue the present complaint.

34. On 24 September 2010, the complainant informed the Ombudsman that he had, in the meantime, submitted further information to Parliament concerning his professional situation and the reasons why he wished to obtain a long-term (annual) visitor's permit. On 22 November 2010, the Ombudsman's services contacted the complainant by telephone and asked him whether he had received a reply from Parliament to his request. The complainant was also invited to explain his position on the Ombudsman's letter of 8 July 2010.

35. The complainant subsequently informed the Ombudsman's services that he had received no reply from Parliament but that he had not yet contacted the institution. He also stated that he would consider doing so in the following days and pointed out that what he wished to obtain was indeed a long-term (annual) visitor's permit.

36. The Ombudsman's services subsequently contacted Parliament's services on several occasions in December 2010 and January 2011. It appeared that the complainant had not yet submitted all the requested information and documents to Parliament's services. Thus, the latter could not process his application. However, Parliament pointed out that the complainant could complete his application at any time.

37. On 18 April 2011, the complainant informed the Ombudsman's services that he was not in a rush to go to Brussels, but he believed that "it might be useful to close the contentious administrative matter".

The results of the inspection of Parliament's file

38. The complainant did not submit to the Ombudsman's services a copy of the contested decision of 4 April 2008, by means of which Parliament decided to extend his ban on access to the library to all Parliament's premises. However, the Ombudsman's services obtained access to that document when they inspected the file on 16 July 2012. The contested decision concerning the complainant extended the access prohibition to all Parliament buildings and was issued "until further notice".

39. During the inspection, Parliament pointed out that it was not technically possible effectively to enforce a ban on access to the library only, because authorised visitors having access to Parliament's premises can also have access to the library. Thus, Parliament would have no prior control on who can access the library.

40. As regards the complainant's application for a new accreditation pass, the inspection of the file showed that the complainant had not yet submitted all the necessary documents.

41. Parliament also explained during the inspection that, at the time when the issues here concerned took place, it had a computer system which could have displayed a message of denied access. However, in the meantime, the system has been changed and no longer shows any messages of denied access. As to the complainant's view that Parliament operates a 'black list', the inspection confirmed Parliament's statement that it has no such list.

The Ombudsman's assessment

42. The Ombudsman will first briefly outline the sequence of events.

43. On 4 April 2008, Parliament informed the complainant about a total entry ban that it had issued against him. On 28 May 2008, when trying to access Parliament premises in Brussels, the complainant was denied access. In its opinion, Parliament argued that there was no total ban, because it would still have been possible for the complainant to enter the premises had he had an invitation from an MEP. In the course of the Ombudsman's inquiry, Parliament did not dispute that an MEP had extended an invitation to the complainant. During the inspection, Parliament argued that a partial ban on access was not feasible, because it was not possible effectively to enforce a ban on entry only to its library. Parliament also acknowledged that the complainant could have been refused entry in any event.

44. According to Article 3 of the 2004 Library Rules, quoted in point 21 above, any person not falling under the categories (a) to (f) listed in that Article may be asked to leave the library immediately. Furthermore, it follows from Article 7 of the 2004 Library Rules (quoted in point 22 above) that library users have, among other things, a duty to respect any requests made by library staff and a duty to use the library services only for the purposes of their work in Parliament. According to the same Article, any person who infringes those duties may be denied access to the library. The Ombudsman notes that, on the basis of these rules, and in light of the facts of the case, Parliament's decision to ban the complainant from entering the library appears to be reasonable.

45. At the same time, the Ombudsman notes that the principle of proportionality, as a general principle of EU law which also finds expression in Article 6 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour[5], requires that measures adopted by the Union institutions do not exceed what is appropriate and necessary for attaining the objective pursued. This implies, among other things, that administrative decisions having negative consequences for individuals should not unnecessarily undermine other rights that they enjoy. It also follows from the case-law of the Court of Justice of the EU that the essence of the principle of proportionality is that a penalty cannot be excessive in relation to the aim of the measure: it is necessary to ascertain whether the means which the measure employs are appropriate and necessary to attain the objective sought[6]. Accordingly, decisions denying access to Parliament's premises should be proportionate and, in particular, take into account Parliament's central role in the democratic decision-making process.

46. In its opinion, Parliament took the view that no total ban on access was issued against the complainant, because if the complainant had held an invitation from an MEP, his entry into Parliament's buildings would have been possible.

47. However, the Ombudsman takes the view that Parliament's decision of 4 April 2008 clearly imposed on the complainant an overall ban on access to Parliament's premises until further notice.

48. During the inspection of Parliament's file, Parliament explained that it was not possible effectively to enforce a ban on access to the library only, because authorised visitors having access to Parliament's premises also have access to the library. Parliament further acknowledged that the complainant could have been refused entry in any event.

49. The Ombudsman considers that Parliament's above-mentioned statements confirm that, indeed, a general access prohibition had been issued against the complainant. Parliament's arguments that there was no such general ban are therefore not convincing. Such a general access prohibition would not have been disproportionate if Parliament had good reasons to extend the ban on access to the library to all Parliament's premises. However, the very fact that Parliament argued, in its opinion, that there was no total ban, because it would still have been possible for the complainant to enter its premises had he had an invitation from an MEP, shows that Parliament did not see any need to impose a total ban on access to its premises because of the complainant's behaviour. The Ombudsman therefore does not need to examine any further whether the complainant's behaviour could have justified a general access prohibition. Parliament's argument that it was not possible to enforce a partial ban on access is also not convincing, given that Parliament itself initially argued that there was no general ban. The Ombudsman finds that, in any event, imposing a prohibition on access to all Parliament premises for an unlimited period of time as a consequence of a breach of the 2004 Library Rules and of allegedly improper behaviour towards library staff was clearly disproportionate. This constitutes an instance of maladministration.

50. When the Ombudsman finds that an instance of maladministration has occurred, he addresses, where appropriate, a friendly solution proposal or a draft recommendation to the institution concerned. In the present case, however, it should be noted that, in the course of the Ombudsman's inquiry, Parliament adopted a constructive approach as regards the possibility of granting the complainant access to its buildings. This is also borne out by (i) the further developments in the case, as referred to in points 30 to 37 above, and (ii) the fact that, as stated in point 41 above, Parliament's computer system in any event no longer shows any messages of denied access. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman takes the view that it would not serve any useful purpose to make a friendly solution proposal or a draft recommendation as regards Parliament's 2008 decision to deny the complainant access to all of its premises for an unlimited period of time. This does not affect the conclusion reached above that Parliament's decision was disproportionate. Accordingly, the Ombudsman will make a critical remark below.

51. As regards the complainant's second claim, Parliament explicitly stated in its opinion that it has no 'black list'. The Ombudsman has no reason to question the factual truthfulness of Parliament's statement which was confirmed by the results of the inspection of the file. On this basis, the Ombudsman concludes that there are no grounds for further inquiries into that aspect of the complaint.

C. Allegation that Parliament failed to take into account that the complainant had been invited by an MEP and the first claim

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

52. In his e-mail of 15 May 2008 to Mr S, a Parliament official, the complainant made reference to Parliament's decision of 4 April 2008 and stated that having no access to Parliament's buildings on 28 May 2008 would cause him "serious economic and moral damage". He further asked to be indemnified for the economic and moral damage he would incurred. Mr S replied to the complainant on the same day, suggesting that he cancel his plans to go to Brussels on 28 May 2008, if he wished to avoid any risks. In his complaint, the complainant argued that Parliament failed to take into account that, when it denied him access to its building on 28 May 2008, he had already been invited to Parliament by MEP L.  He further claimed that he should be reimbursed for the expenses he incurred by travelling to Brussels in vain.

53. In its opinion, Parliament pointed out that the decision taken by its security services to deny the complainant access to Parliament's buildings was communicated to him on 4 April 2008. The complainant contested that decision in a letter to the competent Director-General dated 12 April 2008. On 15 May 2008, in accordance with Parliament's Security rules, the complainant was informed that he would not have access to Parliament's buildings during his stay in Brussels scheduled to take place between 28 and 30 May 2008.

54. Parliament also stated in its opinion, however, that on the basis of its Rules of Procedure, the complainant could still access Parliament's premises as a daily or weekly guest, provided that he was invited by a person or a parliamentary body, who had to accompany him "at all times during the entire period of his visit" to Parliament's premises.

55. In his observations, the complainant submitted that the letter that was sent to him by Parliament's Security services on 4 April 2008 was written in language that was "not very clear"[7]. He confirmed that the non-renewal of his annual visitor's pass was communicated to him in that letter, but the conclusion that he would be denied access to Parliament's buildings could not be deduced from the wording of the letter. The complainant and Ms M, parliamentary assistant to MEP L, by whom the complainant had allegedly been invited to Parliament, had to spend about one and a half hours in the visitors' queue, "awaiting the requested visitor's pass".

The results of the inspection of Parliament's file

56. During the Ombudsman's inspection of the file, Parliament explained that the complainant could, in principle, have entered Parliament's premises if he had held an invitation from an MEP. However, even if the complainant had held an invitation from an MEP and tried to enter Parliament's premises during the period when he was not allowed access, Parliament's computer system could have displayed a message of denied access ("interdiction d'accès"). It was therefore possible that the complainant would have been denied access to Parliament's premises on this basis. Nevertheless, in the meantime, the system has been changed and no longer shows any messages denying access.

57. In the inspected file, there was no trace of an invitation from an MEP.

The Ombudsman's assessment

58. In view of the Ombudsman's above-mentioned conclusions that (i) indeed, a general access prohibition had been issued against the complainant, and (ii) the prohibition was disproportionate[8], Parliament would also appear to have failed to take into account the invitation which an MEP seems to have extended to the complainant when he tried to enter Parliament's premises on 28 May 2008. This issue will be addressed in the critical remark below.

59. As regards the complainant's claim, the Ombudsman takes the view that, given the conclusion that Parliament appears to have failed to take the invitation into account, it cannot be excluded that, in so far as the complainant's travel expenses are concerned, Parliament could have some responsibility for what turned out to be an unsuccessful trip to Brussels from 28 to 30 May 2008. However, the complainant did not put forward any evidence to substantiate such costs.

60. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman concludes that there are no grounds for further inquiries into the fourth allegation and first claim. However, the complainant remains free to turn to Parliament again with concrete evidence substantiating the costs he claims to have incurred. Doing so would enable Parliament to consider the complainant's claim for the reimbursement of these travel expenses. Within the framework of such an examination, Parliament would also be able to assess whether the complainant's decision to travel to Brussels despite the clear warning issued on 15 May 2008 that he would not be allowed access could constitute contributory negligence.

D. Conclusions

On the basis of his inquiry into this complaint, the Ombudsman closes it with the following critical remark:

It follows from the fundamental right to good administration, as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, that Union institutions should ensure due respect for the principle of proportionality. In the case at hand, Parliament's decision to deny the complainant access to all its premises for an unlimited period of time as a consequence of a breach of its library rules and his allegedly improper behaviour towards library staff was not proportionate. Parliament also failed to take into account the invitation which an MEP seems to have extended to the complainant. This amounts to an instance of maladministration.

As regards the remainder of the complaint, there are no grounds for further inquiries.

The complainant and the President of Parliament will be informed of this decision.

 

P. Nikiforos Diamandouros

Done in Strasbourg on 13 December 2012

---

[1] In its opinion, the European Parliament stated that the complainant was registered as a lobbyist.

[2] These rules were replaced by new ones after the events here concerned took place. However, the changes introduced do not affect the present case.

[3] This category of visitors is also referred to as 'long-term visitors'. According to Parliament's intranet website, the category covers all persons who, by virtue of their duties, require frequent or long-term access to Parliament's facilities. The corresponding pass is valid for no more than one year and gives access to Parliament’s buildings during office hours on days when parliamentary business is being conducted.

[4] Quoted in point 20 above.

[5] "1. When taking decisions, the official shall ensure that the measures taken are proportional to the aim pursued. The official shall in particular avoid restricting the rights of the citizens or imposing charges on them, when those restrictions or charges are not in a reasonable relation with the purpose of the action pursued.

2. When taking decisions, the official shall respect the fair balance between the interests of private persons and the general public interest."

[6] See, for example, Case 181/84 Man (Sugar) [1985] ECR 2889, paragraph 20.

[7] In the complainant's words, "in un linguaggio poco chiaro".

[8] See points 42 to 49 above.