Strasbourg, 31 May 2006

Dear Mr C.,

On 26 April 2004, you submitted a complaint against the European Parliament concerning its decision of 4 April 2004 to reject your request, made in July 2003, to organise an exhibition.

On 4 May 2004, I forwarded your complaint to the President of Parliament. On 1 June 2004, I received a letter from the Secretary-General of Parliament, Mr Priestley, in which he pointed out that certain parts of your complaint were not legible due to the poor quality of a facsimile. He therefore asked for a more legible copy so as to enable the matter to be dealt with properly. On 9 June 2004, I forwarded a further copy of your complaint to Parliament.

Parliament sent its opinion on 21 July 2004. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 26 August 2004.

After having examined Parliament's opinion and your observations, I considered that it was necessary to conduct further inquiries. On 16 December 2004, I therefore wrote to Parliament, asking it to comment on your observations. I received the English version of Parliament's reply on 4 February 2005. Since it appeared that no translation into Italian had been sent by Parliament, my services contacted the institution on 21 February 2005 and asked for a translation into Italian of the relevant document. On 2 March 2005, I sent you a copy of the English version of Parliament's reply and on 11 March 2005, I forwarded to you the Italian translation, which I had received on 7 March 2005, with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished, by the end of April 2005. I received no observations from you.

On 29 September 2005, I wrote a further letter to the President of Parliament, since it appeared that it was still not possible to close the case. In my letter, I asked the President to provide me with further information on the present case. On 24 October 2005, I received Parliament's reply, which I forwarded to you on 4 November 2005 with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished, by the end of November 2005. I received no observations from you.

I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

In July 2003, the complainant, at that time an MEP, requested from Parliament the authorisation to organise an exhibition. The exhibition should have taken place on Parliament's premises, during the part-session in May 2004 in Strasbourg. The complainant subsequently clarified that the exhibition was to be on products derived from hemp. By decision of 4 April 2004, Parliament refused the requested authorisation, on the basis of the regulation in force concerning the use of the premises of the institution. Parliament referred to the relevant rules according to which the exhibition must not, in any case, raise serious political objections.

On 13 April 2004, the complainant wrote to Parliament expressing his surprise at the decision taken by the institution. He argued that the products which were to be exhibited derived from hemp, which is legally available in Europe. Furthermore, he stated that the growing of hemp was financed through the Community budget. The complainant therefore stressed that he could not understand the reasons invoked by Parliament to reject his request. The complainant asked Parliament to reconsider its decision.

On 21 April 2004, the complainant received an e-mail from Mr R., on behalf of Ms B., the Quaestor responsible for exhibitions on Parliament's premises. In this e-mail, the complainant was informed that Ms B. was prepared to re-examine his request and thus asked him to provide further information concerning the exhibition in order to give Parliament all the relevant elements to review its decision. The complainant sent the additional requested information on 23 April 2004. On 26 April 2004, the complainant was informed that the College of Quaestors had already confirmed the decision of 4 April 2004 at its meeting of 21 April 2004.

The complainant therefore complained to the Ombudsman. In his complaint, the complainant alleged that Parliament's decision of 4 April 2004 was unfair and that it emerged from Parliament's confirmatory decision of 21 April 2004 that the institution had failed to take into account the information given by him on 23 April 2004 following a request of the institution itself of 21 April 2004.

THE INQUIRY

The European Parliament's opinion

In its opinion on the complaint, Parliament made the following comments:

The complainant's initial request was to organise an exhibition of products typical of his region. However, during the preliminary stages of the authorisation procedure, it emerged that the complainant intended to organise an exhibition of hemp and hemp-based products.

By letter of 4 April 2004, Parliament's administration informed the complainant of the decision taken by the Quaestor responsible for exhibitions to reject his request on the basis of the rules in force, given that it was likely to give rise to major political objections.

During its meeting of 21 April 2004, the College of Quaestors considered a letter sent by the complainant on 13 April 2004 in which he had contested the decision not to authorise the exhibition. After having heard statements by the Quaestor responsible for the exhibitions, Ms B., and by a representative of the President's office, Parliament confirmed the decision to refuse the authorisation for the exhibition.

On 23 April 2004, the complainant submitted supplementary information on the exhibition, that is, a list setting out the items to be exhibited, including 4 boxes containing documentation on hemp, projectors and screens.

In a further letter of 28 April 2004, addressed to the President of Parliament, the complainant expressed his disappointment as regards the decision taken by the College of Quaestors to refuse him authorisation to set up the exhibition. On 29 April 2004, the complainant wrote a further letter in which he pointed out that hemp was not prohibited in France. In his reply of 14 May 2004, the President of Parliament informed the complainant that, at its meeting of 21 April 2004, the College of Quaestors had confirmed a previous decision taken by the Quaestor responsible for exhibitions, which had been taken in accordance with the legislation in force. The President pointed out that it did not therefore appear to be appropriate to review a decision taken by a Quaestor and the College of Quaestors in a field falling under their responsibility.

The letters sent by the complainant on 23, 28 and 29 April 2004 were belated since they had been sent after the final decision had been taken by the College of Quaestors on 21 April 2004.

As regards the subject of the complainant's request, point 12 of Annex I (concerning the Conditions Governing the Authorisation of Exhibitions on Parliament's Premises) to the Rules governing the use of Parliament's premises stipulates that "exhibitors shall undertake to refrain from exhibiting items or, in the context of exhibitions, carrying out activities which might be deemed likely to provoke serious political objections". All the decisions of the College of Quaestors had been taken on the basis of the documents submitted by the complainant in accordance with the relevant rules and with the aim of guaranteeing a fair balance between the various interests involved.

The complainant's observations

In his observations on Parliament's opinion, the complainant stated, as a general comment, that hemp is a product typical of his region.

The complainant further observed that, contrary to what had been stated by Parliament, the decision adopted by the College of Quaestors on 21 April 2004, did not seem to be final. In his e-mail of 21 April 2004, Mr R. had informed him that Ms B. would be prepared to re-examine his proposal. He had been asked to provide further information, which he had sent on 23 April 2004. The complainant maintained his point of view, already expressed in his complaint, that Parliament had failed to take into account the information given by him following a request by the institution itself of 21 April 2004. Parliament's behaviour had caused a situation of uncertainty until a few days before the programmed event and had put him in a difficult situation vis-à-vis the firm responsible for the organisational aspects of the exhibition.

As regards his letters of 23, 28 and 29 April 2004, the complainant argued that he had written them in reaction to the decision of the College of Quaestors of 21 April 2004. Parliament's view that these letters were belated therefore appeared to be pointless.

Further inquiries
First request for further information

After having examined Parliament's opinion and the complainant's observations, the Ombudsman considered that it was necessary to conduct further inquiries. On 16 December 2004, he therefore wrote to Parliament, asking the institution to comment on the complainant's observations and, more specifically, on the fact that, according to the complainant, the decision of 21 April 2004 not to authorise the relevant exhibition was taken despite the fact that, on the same day, Parliament had asked the complainant to provide further information concerning the exhibition in view of a re-examination of his request by the Quaestor responsible for exhibitions on Parliament's premises.

Parliament's reply

In its reply, Parliament stated, as a preliminary remark, that, until the very last moment, the competent services had been unaware of the exact purpose of the exhibition that the complainant had intended to organise. In his e-mail of 4 July 2003, the complainant had requested, without further details, that a meeting room for an exhibition on products typical of his region should be made available. On 10 March 2004, when the complainant had sent the completed information form, he had specified the nature of the exhibition in the following terms: "Tableaux, Information, Sculptures, Models, Audio Video". It had emerged only from the annexes to that request that the complainant intended to arrange an exhibition on hemp and hemp-based products, without, however, clarifying the precise content of the exhibition material to be displayed.

By letter of 4 April 2004, the responsible services informed the complainant of the decision taken by the Quaestor responsible for exhibitions, Ms B., to reject his request since it appeared that, due to its particular nature, the exhibition was likely to give rise to major political objections.

On 13 April 2004, the complainant asked Ms B. to reconsider her decision. At their meeting of 21 April 2004, the College of Quaestors examined the complainant's appeal of 13 April 2004 and confirmed the original decision. The summary of the decisions of that meeting, including the decision concerning the complainant's request, was forwarded to all MEPs by e-mail of 22 April 2004. The said decision constituted the final decision of the College of Quaestors.

This was corroborated, in Parliament's view, by the fact that the complainant himself, in his complaint to the Ombudsman of 26 April 2004, had written that the College of Quaestors had definitively (underlined by Parliament) refused to grant authorisation for his exhibition on 21 April 2004.

As indicated by the complainant, on the same date, Mr R., a category C official working in the exhibitions' service, had indeed sent an e-mail to the complainant in which he informed the complainant of the readiness of the Quaestor responsible for exhibitions to consider further information on the objects to be displayed in his proposed exhibition. It was also true that the e-mail in question reached the complainant somewhat late since it had been sent on 21 April 2004 at 16.03, that is, at the time when the meeting of the College of Quaestors to consider the complainant's appeal (from 15.05 to 17.05) was already in progress. Nevertheless, that e-mail no longer had any official status once the College of Quaestors had confirmed its initial decision. The only official and authentic decision of Parliament as regards the complainant's request was the one taken by the College of Quaestors on 21 April 2004.

Parliament finally stated that the complainant's request had been examined by various instances, that is, Parliament's services, including the Secretary-General himself, by the Quaestor responsible for exhibitions and by the College of Quaestors. Parliament considered that all the decisions concerning the present case had been taken in accordance with the relevant rules, on the basis of the documents submitted by the complainant at the various stages of the procedure and balancing the various interests involved.

Parliament attached to its reply a copy of the correspondence that had taken place between the complainant and itself.

The complainant's observations

No observations on Parliament's reply were received from the complainant.

Second request for further information

Having analysed all the elements in his possession, the Ombudsman considered that further information was necessary in order to enable him to deal with the present complaint. On 29 September 2005, the Ombudsman therefore wrote to Parliament and asked the institution to explain in substance the reasons why it considered that the exhibition proposed by the complainant was likely to give rise to major political objections.

Parliament's reply

In its reply to the Ombudsman's letter of 29 September 2005, Parliament underlined that it was well known that hemp was used for the preparation of psychotropic substances and that certain representatives of the Radical Party, among them the complainant, were involved in a political struggle in favor of the liberalisation of psychotropic substances (the complainant was himself the Parliamentary coordinator of the "Lega internazionale antiproibizionista"). Parliament further stated that, unlike the Radicals, the institution was actively involved in fighting the abuse of drugs. Furthermore, Parliament noted that cannabis (a product derived from hemp) was on the black list annexed to the United Nations' Conventions concerning the fight against drugs. These lists had been referred to by the United Nations Convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances adopted in Vienna on 19 December 1988 and approved by the European Economic Community by Council Decision of 22 October 1990(1).

Furthermore, on 21 April 2004, when the College of Quaestors adopted its final decision concerning the complainant's request, Parliament adopted a resolution (273 votes in favor, 225 votes against and 6 abstentions) on the proposal for a Council Regulation on the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. According to Parliament, the exhibition proposed by the complainant would probably not have conveyed the complexity of a controversial issue such as the policy concerning psychotropic substances. If authorised, the exposition could have constituted a "controversial act", within the meaning of the relevant legislation.

Parliament concluded that, in view of the above considerations, it appeared legitimate to suppose that there was a risk that an exhibition on hemp-based products could have been manipulated in favour of the liberalisation of drugs. In order to guarantee respect for the commitments undertaken by Parliament and by the European Union in the fight against the abuse of drugs, the only decision that could have been given by the College of Quaestors was to reject the complainant's request.

The complainant's observations

No observations on Parliament's reply were received from the complainant.

THE DECISION

1 Parliament's decision not to authorise an exhibition of products derived from hemp

1.1 In July 2003, the complainant, an Italian MEP, requested from the European Parliament authorisation to organise an exhibition of products typical of his region. The exhibition should have taken place on Parliament's premises, during the part-session in May 2004 in Strasbourg. The complainant subsequently clarified that the exhibition was to be on products derived from hemp. By decision of 4 April 2004, Parliament refused the requested authorisation. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that this decision was unfair.

1.2 In its opinion, Parliament stated that, according to point 12 of Annex I (concerning the Conditions Governing the Authorisation of Exhibitions on Parliament's Premises) to the Rules governing the use of Parliament's premises, "exhibitors shall undertake to refrain from exhibiting items or, in the context of exhibitions, carrying out activities which might be deemed likely to provoke serious political objections".

After consideration of the complainant's request, the Quaestor responsible for exhibitions, Ms B., decided to reject it on 4 April 2004 because she considered that the exhibition proposed by the complainant was likely to give rise to major political objections. In a further meeting of 21 April 2004, the College of Quaestors analysed a letter sent by the complainant on 13 April 2004, in which he contested the decision not to authorise the exhibition. After having heard statements by the Quaestor responsible for the exhibitions and by a representative of the President's office, the College of Quaestors confirmed the decision to refuse the authorisation for the exhibition.

1.3 In its reply to a request for further information made by the Ombudsman on 16 December 2004, Parliament stated that, up to the very last moment, its competent services had been unaware of the exact purpose of the exhibition that the complainant wanted to organise. On 10 March 2004, the complainant had specified in the information form the nature of the exhibition in the following terms: "Tableaux, Information, Sculptures, Models, Audio Video". It had emerged only from the annexes to that request that the complainant intended to arrange an exhibition on hemp and hemp-based products, without, however, clarifying the precise content of the exhibition material to be displayed.

The complainant's request had been examined by various instances, that is, by Parliament's services, including the Secretary-General himself, by the Quaestor responsible for exhibitions and by the College of Quaestors. According to Parliament, all decisions concerning the present case had been taken by the responsible Quaestor and by the College of Quaestors in accordance with the relevant rules on the basis of the documents submitted by the complainant at the various stages of the procedure and balancing the various interests involved.

1.4 On 29 September 2005, the Ombudsman asked the institution to explain in substance the reasons why it considered that the exhibition proposed by the complainant was likely to give rise to major political objections.

In its reply, Parliament stated that it was well known that hemp was used for the preparation of psychotropic substances and that certain representatives of the Radical Party, among them the complainant, were involved in a political struggle in favor of the liberalisation of psychotropic substances. In its reply, Parliament further underlined that it was actively involved in fighting the abuse of drugs. According to Parliament, the exhibition proposed by the complainant would probably not have conveyed the complexity of a controversial issue such as the policy concerning psychotropic substances. If authorised, the exposition could have constituted a 'controversial act' in accordance with the relevant legislation.

Parliament concluded that, in view of the above considerations, it appeared legitimate to suppose that there was a risk that an exhibition on hemp-based products could have been manipulated in favour of the liberalisation of drugs. In order to guarantee respect for the commitments undertaken by Parliament and by the European Union in the field of the fight against the abuse of drugs, the only possible decision by the Quaestors was to reject the complainant's request.

1.5 In his observations on Parliament's first opinion, the complainant essentially maintained his complaint. The complainant did not submit additional observations on Parliament's further replies to the Ombudsman's letters of 16 December 2004 and 29 September 2005.

1.6 The Ombudsman notes that, according to Point 12 of Annex I to the Rules governing the use of Parliament's premises, "exhibitors shall undertake to refrain from exhibiting items or, in the context of exhibitions, carrying out activities which might be deemed likely to provoke serious political objections". In his complaint, the complainant argued that hemp is legally available in Europe and that he could therefore not understand the reasons invoked by Parliament to reject his request.

1.7 Article 11 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour provides that "the official shall act impartially, fairly and reasonably".

1.8 In the present case, Parliament based its decision to reject the complainant's request on Point 12 of Annex I to the Rules governing the use of Parliament's premises. In the light of the elements in his possession, the Ombudsman considers that there is no evidence that Parliament acted unfairly as regards the complainant's request.

1.9 In view of the above, it appears that there has been no maladministration by Parliament as regards this aspect of the case.

2 Alleged failure by Parliament to take into account the complainant's letter of 23 April 2004

2.1 In his complaint, the complainant alleged that from Parliament's confirmatory decision of 21 April 2004, it emerged that the institution had failed to take into account the information provided by him on 23 April 2004, following a request of the institution itself of 21 April 2004.

2.2 In its opinion, Parliament did not comment on this point.

2.3 In his observations, the complainant reiterated his statement that, on 21 April 2004, Mr R., a Parliament official, wrote to him on behalf of Ms B., the Quaestor responsible for exhibitions, to inform him that Ms B. was prepared to re-examine his proposal. The complainant was thus asked to provide Mr R. with further information concerning the exhibition, which he sent on 23 April 2004.

2.4 In his request for further information, the Ombudsman asked Parliament to comment on the fact that, according to the complainant, the decision of 21 April 2004 not to authorise the relevant exhibition was taken despite the fact that, on the same day, Parliament had asked the complainant to provide further information concerning the exhibition in view of a re-examination of his request by the Quaestor responsible for exhibitions on Parliament's premises.

2.5 In its reply, Parliament explained that the relevant message received by the complainant on 21 April 2004 had been sent to him by Mr R., a category C official working in the exhibitions service. At the same time this e-mail was being sent, the College of Quaestors was meeting to deal with the complainant's appeal. During this meeting, the College of Quaestors confirmed its initial decision not to authorise the complainant's request to organise an exposition of products derived from hemp. Mr R.'s e-mail ceased to have official status once the College of Quaestors had confirmed its initial decision.

The only official and authentic decision of Parliament, as regards the complainant's request, was the one taken by the College of Quaestors on 21 April 2004.

2.6 No observations on Parliament's reply were received from the complainant.

2.7 From the information in his possession, the Ombudsman notes that the final decision on the complainant's request was taken on 21 April 2004.

The Ombudsman further notes, however, that, on the same date, an official working in the exhibitions service sent an e-mail to the complainant in which he informed him of the readiness of the Quaestor responsible for exhibitions to reconsider his request and asked him to provide further information on the objects to be displayed.

From the documents submitted by Parliament with its reply of 7 March 2005 to the request for further information, it further emerges that, on 22 April 2004, the complainant sent a letter, by both e-mail and post, to Ms B., the Quaestor responsible for exhibitions. In this letter, the complainant referred to the message that had been sent to him the previous day by Mr R. The complainant further informed Ms B. that he would send further information on the exhibition the following day.

The Ombudsman further notes that the complainant copied his letter of 22 April 2004 to Mr R.

2.8 The Ombudsman takes note of Parliament's explanation that the only official and authentic decision of Parliament as regards the complainant's request was the one taken by the College of Quaestors on 21 April 2004.

2.9 Nevertheless, principles of good administration require that institutions provide citizens with clear information and that they correct mistakes as soon they occur.

In the present case, a Parliament official sent a message to the complainant on 21 April 2004. It is clear, however, that the content of this message was no longer relevant after the decision on the complainant's appeal had been taken by the College of Quaestors. Given that the message had thus become devoid of purpose, it would have been good administrative practice to have informed the complainant accordingly.

The Ombudsman notes that Parliament underlined that the relevant message was sent to the complainant by a category C official. However, the category of the official does not appear to be relevant in the present case, since it is undisputed that Mr R. was working in the exhibition service and that he had acted in an official capacity.

The Ombudsman considers that as soon as the final decision had been taken, it was no longer necessary to obtain the further information requested from the complainant. Parliament should therefore have informed the complainant to disregard the message sent to him on 21 April 2004, which appeared to have become devoid of purpose.

Parliament's failure promptly to inform the complainant to disregard the relevant message, which had become devoid of purpose, constitutes an instance of maladministration.

2.10 The Ombudsman therefore makes a critical remark below.

3 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, it is necessary to make the following critical remark:

Principles of good administration require that institutions provide citizens with clear information and that they correct mistakes as soon they occur.

In the present case, the complainant received a message, on 21 April 2004, from a Parliament official who asked him to provide further information concerning the proposed exhibition in view of a re-examination of his request. However, it emerges that the final decision on the complainant's request was already taken on the same day as the request for further information.

The Ombudsman considers that as soon as the final decision had been taken, it was no longer necessary to obtain the further information requested from the complainant. Parliament should therefore have informed the complainant to disregard the message sent to him on 21 April 2004, which appeared to have become devoid of purpose.

Parliament's failure promptly to inform the complainant to disregard the relevant message, which had become devoid of purpose, constitutes an instance of maladministration.

Given that these aspects of the case concern procedures relating to specific events in the past, it is not appropriate to pursue a friendly settlement of the matter.

The President of Parliament will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) Council decision of 22 October 1990 concerning the conclusion, on behalf of the European Economic Community, of the United Nations Convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and Psychotropic Substances, OJ 1990 L 326, p. 56.