Background to the complaint

1. The complainant runs a website on tourism in Cyprus. He is also a presenter of TV programmes focused on tourism in Cyprus.

2. In August 2017, the European Parliament´s Information Office in Cyprus^[1] (`Information Office´) sent a call for expression of interest to various local journalists and media about a conference on tourism, organised by Parliament, which would take place in Brussels at the end of September 2017. According to that call, Parliament would cover the travel and accommodation expenses of four Cypriot journalists who cover tourism. The participants would be selected on a `first come, first served´ basis.

3. The complainant was not among the recipients of this call for expression of interest. When he heard about the conference, he expressed his interest within the relevant deadline. The Information Office replied that it would contact the complainant once the relevant unit in Brussels gave “the green light”. The complainant was eventually informed that he had not been selected.

4. The complainant considered that the reply he received was not clear and that there had been irregularities in the selection procedure. He complained to Parliament about the lack of transparency and discrimination in the selection procedure.

5. Dissatisfied with Parliament’s replies, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in December 2017.

The inquiry

6. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complainant´s concern that the Information Office systematically treats certain journalists and media in a preferential manner, regarding in particular:

1) how it selects Cypriot journalists to travel abroad, at Parliament’s expense, to cover activities organised by Parliament;

2) how it communicates information about Parliament´s activities and events to Cypriot media.

7.  In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman received Parliament´s reply on the complaint and, subsequently, the comments of the complainant in response to Parliament´s reply.

On how the Information Office selects journalists to participate in events

Arguments made by the parties

8. Parliament stated that it organises events for journalists on a regular basis. It also invites journalists to cover its plenary sessions and other important meetings. For this purpose, Parliament reaches out to all media outlets on the basis of its media strategy, which takes into account outreach, readership, viewership, production of original material and employment of journalists.

9. Parliament stated that, to be reimbursed their travel and accommodation expenses, journalists participating in Parliament events must either be a member of the Union of Cyprus Journalists or hold a press card issued by the Cyprus Press and Information Office. If a journalist does not fulfil this condition, they may nevertheless be admitted to participate in a Parliament event on the basis of a letter from the chief editor or director of a well-established media outlet, certifying that the journalist is working for that outlet. Parliament stated that, in this case, all Cypriot journalists selected to participate in the conference were either members of the Union of Cyprus Journalists or holders of a press card.

10. According to Parliament, the complainant was not a member of the Union of Cyprus Journalists or a holder of a press card when he expressed his interest in the conference. No media outlet had put the complainant forward to participate in the event. In addition, the complainant’s website was not included on the Cyprus Press and Information Office’s list of registered local media.

11. The complainant considers the fact that he was not selected to be inconsistent with the conditions set out in the call for expression of interest, which were to be active in tourism journalism and to be among the first to reply to the call. The call did not set out any other selection criteria such as outreach, readership, viewership, production of original material and employment of journalists as referred to by Parliament. Had the Information Office asked him to provide evidence regarding his work as a journalist or his website, he would have been willing to do so^[2].

12. The complainant further argued that the Information Office systematically selects the same journalists to travel abroad. He also contended that in the past the Information Office had admitted people who were not members of the Union of Cyprus Journalists or did not hold a press card. He therefore believes that Parliament “made up” the criteria for participation in its events after his complaint to the Ombudsman.  

The Ombudsman's assessment

13. Parliament has established criteria for journalists to be considered eligible for participation in events for which Parliament covers the expenses, primarily that they are either members of the Union of Cyprus Journalists or holders of a press card issued by the Cyprus Press and Information Office. There is nothing to suggest that these criteria are not reasonable and objective. The complainant has not provided any concrete information to indicate that the Information Office is not applying the criteria consistently. Nor did he provide Parliament with any proof that, at the time he expressed interest in participating in the conference, he met these criteria.

14. When selecting journalists from among those who are eligible, Parliament takes into account outreach, readership, viewership, production of original material and employment of journalists of the media outlets that the journalists represent. This is a way for Parliament to determine the relevance of the media outlet. This seems to be a reasonable and objective way to carry out the selection.

15. Given that it is for the media outlets to decide whom among their eligible journalists to send to Parliament’s events, it may well be that the media outlets often choose the same journalist. This does not constitute evidence of unfair treatment.  

16. On the basis of the above, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration by Parliament in relation to this aspect of the complaint.

17. It is important, however, that the criteria for choosing media outlets and journalists be clear and transparent, particularly if it involves spending public money. Since selecting local media to cover Parliament´s activities or events abroad appears to be one of the core tasks of the Information Office^[3], the Ombudsman encourages it going forward to ensure greater transparency about how the selection is done.

On how the Information Office communicates about activities and events

Arguments made by the parties

18. The complainant contended that the Information Office reaches out only to a closed circuit of journalists and media outlets, based on personal acquaintances, and that it has systematically ignored his requests to include him in its mailing list.

19. The complainant argued that, after he complained to Parliament about its selection of journalists for events, the Information Office started to contact a wider range of journalists from various Cypriot media to invite them to events. According to the complainant, this shows that the Information Office had previously given preferential treatment to certain journalists and media outlets.

20. Parliament stated that there are no particular criteria for being on the general mailing list of its Information Office. Those who receive its press releases are not necessarily journalists.

21. The Information Office also has a mailing list of journalists and media outlets, to which it sends invitations for events open to journalists only. The press officer drew up this list after networking with media outlets. The list is updated through regular contacts with the news directors and chief editors of Cypriot media outlets. The Information Office sent the call in this case to the journalists and media outlets on that list. Neither the complainant as a journalist, nor his website as a media outlet, was on that list. The complainant’s website was not on the list because it was not included on the Cyprus Press and Information Office’s list of registered local media. The complainant was not on the list because no media outlet on the government list listed him as a member of its editorial team.  

The Ombudsman's assessment

22. The general mailing list of the Information Office seems to be open to anyone. The Information Office also has a targeted mailing list to which it sends invitations to events open to journalists only. The Information Office has given a reasonable explanation for how it compiled the list and how it keeps it up-to-date.

23. On this basis, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration by Parliament in relation to this aspect of the complaint.

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion:

There was no maladministration by the European Parliament.

The complainant and Parliament will be informed of this decision.

 

Emily O'Reilly

European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 25/04/2019

 

[1] The European Parliament has an Information Office (also known as ´Liaison Office´) in every Member State. Their main role is to raise awareness of the European Parliament and the European Union and to encourage people to vote in European parliamentary elections. For more information see: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/en/stay-informed/information-offices-in-the-member-states

[2] The complainant gives detailed examples of what he regards as proof of the relevance and popularity of his website (traffic, originality of material, interaction with public, tourism industry and media).

[3] See the Parliament Information Office´s website: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/cyprus/el [under “Το Γραφείο & Επικοινωνία” (available only in Greek)].