Mr President, distinguished Members of the European Parliament !

Let me begin by saying how grateful I am for the opportunity to address the European Parliament concerning my Annual Report for 1998. This is the fourth Annual report of the European Ombudsman and the last to be presented during this legislature.

The results for 1998

When the Annual report for 1997 was dealt with by the Parliament, some critical voices suggested that the Ombudsman had success in only a small percentage of cases. This view was reached on the basis of all the complaints received, including those which were outside the mandate. I do not believe that this way of judging the results of an ombudsman is really fair. There is not much to be done about a complaint which is outside the mandate, other than to advise the complainant or transfer the complaint to a competent body. We have done that in almost 80 % of such cases, so that citizens whose complaints are outside the mandate do not usually leave us empty-handed, especially if their rights under Community law are involved.
In many cases, the complaint could be dealt with speedily and effectively by an ombudsmen or similar body (such as a petitions committee) at the national level. We therefore try consistently to promote the idea that these non-judicial bodies be encouraged and assisted in dealing with complaints from European citizens concerning Community law. Although there have been calls to broaden the mandate of the European Ombudsman so as to deal also with complaints against national authorities, especially in cases concerning freedom of movement, I still believe it is preferable to create an effective system of cooperation with the national Ombudsmen and similar bodies and inform the European citizens that, in every Member State, there is a non-judicial body which can assist them in conflicts with national, regional or local administrations concerning their Community law rights. I have therefore undertaken to increase my efforts to achieve success in this field in 1999.
During 1998, the Ombudsman's office received 1372 new complaints compared with 1181 in 1997 and 842 in 1996. We also closed 185 inquiries with a reasoned decision (as compared to 101 in 1997). In 45 % of these cases the institution settled the matter, a friendly solution was found, or the case was closed with a critical remark. In 1997 and 1996 the comparable figures were 40 % and 35 %. During 1998, no maladministration was found in 52 % of the cases in which an inquiry was carried out. A finding of no maladministration is not always a negative result for the complainant. The institution or body has to explain its behaviour to the complainant and in some cases even manages to convince the complainant that it has acted correctly.
It is always necessary for an ombudsman's office to keep close watch over its results from the point of view of the citizen. Although considerable progress has been made, there is still a lot to be done in this field. More attention can be dedicated to this as the establishment period of the Ombudsman's office can soon be concluded and the full focus can then be on complaints handling.
It is also important to keep a record of the time taken to deal with complaints. In this respect, we have set ourselves two targets. The first is to decide on the admissibility of complaints within one month. The second is that an inquiry into a complaint should normally be closed by a reasoned decision within one year. The first target seems to be quite possible to reach and maintain. We have no complaints pending a decision on admissibility from last year. More work needs to be done, however, to reach the second target. For the time being, we still have 30 cases open from the year 1997.
It is of the utmost importance to tackle the backlog of cases where the inquiry has gone on for longer than one year. My experience is that backlogs of complaints can easily turn into a permanent feature of an ombudsman's office, unless the problem is tackled vigorously when it occurs. So I still hope that, with the additional resources which have been made available from next July, the ambitious target of closing complaints after an inquiry within one year will be achieved in the future.

The results of cooperation with the European Parliament

As today could be the last opportunity during this legislature for discussion of our mutual cooperation in the Committee on Petitions and with the European Parliament, it is perhaps the right moment to try to summarize what we have achieved together so far.
First of all, we have achieved a practice of cooperation in the dealing with complaints and petitions which has been described in the Annual reports of both bodies. Furthermore, we have developed a fruitful dialogue through the Committee's reports on the Annual Reports of the Ombudsman, beginning with the first report by Mrs Ahern, through the reports of Mr Papakyriazis, Mr Newman and this year Mrs de Esteban(1). For example, the call in the Papakyriazis report for a clear definition of the term "maladministration" led me to offer a definition in the Annual Report for 1997. Following Mr Newman's report on behalf of the Committee on Petitions, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution welcoming the definition(2). The practice of smooth and efficient dealings with the Ombudsman's reports in the European Parliament has now been properly and formally established by bringing the Parliament's Rules of Procedure in line with the Statute of the Ombudsman and by expressly providing for the competent Committee (that is to say, the Committee on Petitions), to deal with both the Ombudsman's Annual and possible Special reports(3).
Secondly, an own initiative inquiry into public access to documents, supported by the Committee through the report of Mrs Thors and by the European Parliament(4) has led all the Community institutions and bodies concerned to adopt rules on public access to documents, except for the Court of Justice. We have recently written to the European Central Bank to inquire if they have already adopted rules on public access to documents.
Thirdly, I should like to refer to the idea of a Code of good administrative behaviour, which was first mentioned in the Perry report on the Committee on Petitions' own activities for 1996-7 and supported in the Newman report on the Ombudsman's Annual report for 1997. It appears likely that such a Code will soon become a reality as the European Commission has adopted a draft in its first reading before the Commissioners resigned. The new Commission has of course the possibility to even improve the draft before adopting it.
Fourthly, we have managed to improve the administrative procedure that the European Commission uses in its role as the "Guardian of the Treaty" when dealing with complaints or petitions from European citizens. The procedure has become more open and effective as a result, though there is still some way to go before the citizen is treated as a party in these proceedings.
Finally, let me mention some of the global statistics concerning the activities of the European Ombudsman since 1995, which the Committee on Petitions supervises in its dealing with the Annual reports. Up to the end of March 1999, inquiries were begun in 624 cases (including 5 own initiative inquiries); 441 inquiries have been closed, including the following positive findings for the complainant:
- 94 cases were settled by the institution, to the satisfaction of the complainant;
- 7 cases were closed with a friendly solution;
- In 89 cases a critical remark was issued, to avoid the repetition of an instance of maladministration;
- 5 inquiries led to a draft recommendation, of which 2 have been accepted by the institution concerned, one led to a Special report to the Parliament (public access to documents) and two are currently ongoing.
I would also like to say a few words about the recent revelations and accusations about fraud and corruption in the EU administration, in particular within the European Commission. My professional experience tells me that an open administration makes most cases of fraud and corruption very difficult to carry through and extremely easy to detect. A closed administration on the other hand, that conducts its business through secret meetings and the holding of secret files and documents, gives precisely the murky circumstances that enable fraud and corruption to flourish. So openness is an effective tool in preventing and fighting fraud and corruption.
In the present administrative practice there is still an old-fashioned principle of exaggerated hierarchy. To my mind this principle when applied leads to a lack of motivation amongst those staff that really interact with the citizens. Furthermore, it makes all kinds of malpractice easier, because the properly-acting staff cannot speak out about their concerns over the activities of their institution. If a civil servant cannot speak and write about his or her daily work without the consent of superiors, this does not encourage a motivated and sound atmosphere in the workplace. So more transparency and less old- fashioned hierarchy would give more motivation to the staff and spare the EU administration from many of its troubles.
In improving transparency, it is essential that the new regulation on public access to documents under the Amsterdam Treaty be adopted as soon as it is possible to do so. It must contain modern and comprehensive principles in this domain.
It is also essential that the Statute of the European Ombudsman contain a clear provision to give the Ombudsman the right to inspect all necessary files and documents, if unnecessary and time-consuming disputes with the institutions are to be avoided.
I am satisfied that the Committee on Petitions is supporting my initiative in this aspect in the De Esteban report. I hope that this position will be confirmed by the European Parliament.
Mr President !
I would like to use this opportunity to thank all the Community institutions and bodies for another year of constructive cooperation. I would especially like to address the Commission and its responsible Member, Anita GRADIN and thank her for her firm and continuing commitment to an open and accountable administration.
My thanks are due also to the Chairman of the Committee on Petitions, Mr FONTANA, and to all the Members of the Committee for their supportive and cooperative attitude in their contacts with the Ombudsman's office. Special thanks go to Mrs DE ESTEBAN for her professional and competent work in drafting the report now before you.
Mr President, Members of the European Parliament, thank you for your attention.

---

(1) Ahern report, A4-0176/96; Papakyriazis report, A4-0211/97; Newman Report, A4-0258/98.

(2) OJ 1998 C 292/168.

(3) See the reports of the Committee on the Rules of Procedure, the Verification of Credentials and Immunities A4-0416/97, (rapporteur Mr Crowley) adopted 16 July 1998; A4-0016/99 (rapporteur Mr Voggenhuber).

(4) Special report from the European Ombudsman to the European Parliament following the own-initiative inquiry into public access to documents (616/PUBAC/F/IJH), 1998 OJ C 44/9; Thors report A4-0265/98, resolution of the EP, OJ 1998 C 292/170.