THE BACKGROUND TO THE COMPLAINT

1. It appears that on 16 December 2007 the complainant, a German citizen, sent a letter to the European Commission, in which he pointed out that, on a website entitled "Get your facts straight", the Commission referred to Brussels as the capital of the EU. He explained that it was common knowledge that Brussels was the capital of Belgium. However, given that, to his knowledge, the EU has no official capital, he questioned the basis on which Brussels was identified as the capital of the EU on the said website.

2. It appears that the complainant received no reply to his letter.

THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE INQUIRY

3. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant took the view that the information regarding Brussels given on the Commission's websites was incorrect. He submitted the following allegations:

1. On (i) its website entitled "Get your facts straight" as well as on (ii) its other websites, the Commission incorrectly referred to Brussels as the capital of the EU.
2. On its websites, the Commission incorrectly referred to Brussels as the capital of Europe.

The complainant claimed that the Commission should correct its websites and replace the incorrect designation of "capital" by a suitable term. It should furthermore avoid referring to Brussels as the capital of the EU, particularly in communications and publications aimed at the public. In so far as the relevant text passages are in fact citations from other sources, the Commission should draw attention to this fact, as well as to the fact that the designation of "capital" is incorrect.

THE INQUIRY

4. By letter of 14 March 2008, the Ombudsman informed the complainant that he did not appear to have made any prior administrative approaches to the Commission with regard to the second aspect of his first allegation and his second allegation. Therefore, on the basis of Article 2(4) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman, which requires complainants to make prior administrative approaches to the institution concerned before submitting a complaint to the Ombudsman, the second aspect of his first allegation and his second allegation were deemed inadmissible.

5. The complaint was forwarded to the President of the Commission for an opinion on the first aspect of the complainant's first allegation and his claim. On 15 July 2008, the Commission sent its opinion, which the Ombudsman forwarded to the complainant with an invitation to make observations. The complainant presented his observations on 30 September 2008.

THE OMBUDSMAN'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

A. As regards the complainant's allegation of incorrect information on the Commission's website

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

6. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant pointed out that the EU has no capital. According to him, it was particularly serious that, on a website entitled "Get your facts straight", Brussels was identified as the capital of the EU. Against this background, he alleged that, on the afore-mentioned website, the Commission incorrectly referred to Brussels as the capital of the EU.

7. In its opinion, the Commission explained that the website entitled "Get your facts straight" had been set up in order to cover press stories, which relied on manipulated or incorrect facts. The aim of the website was to present these stories and set the record straight. The Commission pointed out that the expression 'capital of the EU' used on the said website referred to specific stories in the European press relating to a proposed new flag for Europe. These press stories followed the publication of an independent report, resulting from an invitation extended by the then President of the Commission and the then Prime Minister of Belgium to a group of intellectuals to discuss the implications of a European capital. According to the Commission, in the report it was clearly stated that its contents did not necessarily represent the position of the Commission which, however, had not been very well reflected in ensuing press articles.

8. The Commission also drew attention to the fact that the expression 'capital of the EU' was a commonly used figurative expression, explained by the fact that Brussels is the seat of the Commission, the Council of the EU and a number of further bodies of the EU.

9. In his observations, the complainant took the view that the Commission's opinion was self-contradictory. On the one hand, it stated that the aim of the website was to set the record straight, whereas, on the other hand, it apparently did not intend to correct expressions used in the press. He also observed that a website entitled "Get your facts straight" led one to assume that the information presented on it was correct and corresponded to facts. This, however, was not the case regarding the reference to Brussels as the capital of the EU. The complainant finally noted that the reference to Brussels as the capital of the EU, even if understood as a figurative expression, could not be considered as a fact.

The Ombudsman's assessment

10. The Ombudsman notes at the outset that, in the interest of avoiding misleading information, the content provided by the Commission on its websites must be correct and accurate[1].

The Ombudsman observes that, following a reference to press reports on a recent design proposal for the flag of the EU, the Commission went on to state the following on the website involved in the present complaint:

"The design was included in an independent report which aimed to underline the unique status of Brussels as the capital of both the EU and of Belgium."

11. In its opinion, the Commission explained that the expression 'capital of the EU' used on the said website referred to specific stories in the European press, relating to a proposed new flag for Europe. However, the Ombudsman is not convinced that a reference to the 'capital of the EU' was suggested or necessitated by the press articles meant to be rebutted by the Commission, given that none of these press articles, or at least of those pieces of text reproduced on the Commission's website in the section preceding the incriminated passage, appear to refer to Brussels as the 'capital of the EU'.

12. In its opinion, the Commission also referred to the notion of 'capital of the EU' as being a "figurative expression". While the Ombudsman accepts that a reference to Brussels as the 'capital of the EU' can, as the Commission argues, be considered as a figurative expression, he, nevertheless, wishes to point out this cannot apply to the reference to Brussels as the capital of Belgium.

13. At the same time, the Ombudsman notes that the quoted sentence is part of the Commission's comments on press reports relating to a proposed flag for Europe. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that, in the relevant passage of its website, the Commission intended to comment on the media coverage of the design proposal for the flag which thus must be regarded as the focus of its remarks. In its opinion, the Commission explained that the designation of Brussels as the 'capital of the EU' was not its own qualification, but instead constituted a description of the contents of an independent report, which did not necessarily reflect the Commission's opinion. This appears to be a possible interpretation of the quoted sentence, given that it is consonant with its wording and context.

14. In view of the above, the Ombudsman considers that there appears to have been no maladministration by the Commission.

15. It is true that the Commission could have made it even clearer that the reference to Brussels as the 'capital of the EU' was in fact to be understood as a reference to the contents of the independent report. The Ombudsman fully commends the Commission for its efforts to publicise its views on misleading and/or incorrect media coverage which includes setting up, for this purpose, the website "Get your facts straight". He also observes that the contents of this website will presumably be studied closely by interested citizens. The Ombudsman trusts that the Commission will choose the wording used on websites of particular interest to citizens with care.

B. As to the complainant's claim

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

16. In his complaint, the complainant claimed that the Commission should correct its websites and replace the incorrect designation of "capital" by a suitable term. It should furthermore avoid referring to Brussels as the capital of the EU, particularly in communications and publications aimed at the public. In so far as the relevant text passages are in fact citations from other sources, the Commission should draw attention to this fact, as well as to the fact that the designation is incorrect.

17. In its opinion, the Commission pointed out that changing the expression here at issue on the above-mentioned website was not within its remit, given that it just reflected an expression used by the press in the framework of an on-going debate. It was to be understood that this expression, as clearly stated, did not necessarily reflect the Commission's position. Finally, the said website was mainly targeted at the general public, which to some extent was familiar with the expression of 'capital of the EU' and would be able to interpret it.

18. In his observations, the complainant argued that it was within the Commission's remit to correct the reference to Brussels as the capital of the EU on the said website, since its contents necessarily reflected the Commission's position.

The Ombudsman's assessment

19. The Ombudsman observes that the complainant's claim is apparently not limited to the website entitled "Get your facts straight" but instead extends to a number of unspecified websites operated by the Commission. However, since the complainant has not made any prior administrative approaches to the Commission with regard to websites other than the site "Get your facts straight", the considerations set out in point 4 above regarding the second aspect of the complainant's first allegation must apply mutatis mutandis to the complainant's claim, insofar as it relates to other websites. Therefore the Ombudsman will deal with the complainant's claim only insofar as it relates to the website entitled "Get your facts straight".

20. The Ombudsman is not convinced by the Commission's argument that changing an expression used on this website is not within its remit, since the Commission's editorial responsibility over websites maintained by it would appear to include the choice of the wording and of relevant contexts, in which it presents particular contents. However, the Ombudsman considers that, since the complainant's allegation cannot be sustained, there appears to be no need to correct or otherwise change the said website. Therefore the complainant's claim cannot succeed.

C. Conclusions

On the basis of his inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration as regards the first aspect of the complainant's allegation and his claim. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

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

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

Done in Strasbourg on 16 October 2008

---

[1] See complaint 2403/2006/(WP)BEH, point 1.5.