1 Introduction

I am delighted to have the opportunity to address you, the Greek Chapter of Transparency International, on a topic that every Ombudsman has very much at heart, namely transparency.

I have been a member (currently on leave) since its inception and I follow the activities of both the Greek Chapter and its parent organisation with great interest.

I shall begin my contribution by explaining what an ombudsman is, why the ombudsman institution was created and how it has spread and developed.

I shall then speak about the task of the European Ombudsman and the European Ombudsman's role in promoting transparency, which Commissioner Siim Kallas referred to in a recent speech - and I agree with him - as "an essential prerequisite for the integrity and credibility of /.../ political institutions". Finally, I shall consider the European Ombudsman's contribution to the EU fight against corruption.

My goal is threefold: to identify those elements on which the work of contemporary ombudsmen is based; to show that the work of the European Ombudsman is also based on those elements; and to demonstrate how the concept of transparency constitutes an important part of each of those elements and informs my daily work. I will also seek to explain in what way I consider that promoting transparency greatly contributes to the fight against corruption.

2 What is an Ombudsman?
2.1 The basic role

The basic function of an ombudsman is to investigate and report on complaints against public authorities.

The world of ombudsmen is diverse, but there are certain generally recognised criteria that every ombudsman should meet. These are: independence, fair procedure, public accountability and effectiveness.

2.2 The development of the ombudsman institution

The first ombudsman institution was created in Sweden in 1809 on the initiative of the Swedish Parliament. Parliament considered that an institution independent of the ruling authority, the King, was needed in order to ensure that the public authorities and their officials acted in accordance with laws and statutes. The basic element on which the work of an ombudsman is based was thus born - legality.

About a century later, Finland followed in Sweden's footsteps, being the second country in the world to establish an ombudsman institution in 1919, followed by Denmark in 1955.

In the 1960s and early 1970s the ombudsman institution started spreading and older democracies such as Norway, New Zealand, the UK and France set up such institutions in 1962, 1967 and 1972 respectively.

This was done in order to tackle citizens' problems with the public administration, which had expanded in size and taken on new roles in the aftermath of the Second World War, when the welfare state took a firmer shape and grew greatly in size. The second element that ombudsmen work at upholding thus saw the light of day - good administration.

As part of the newer democracies' commitment to respect human rights and the principle of democracy, ombudsman institutions were established, from the mid-1970s on, in post-authoritarian states, such as Spain, Portugal and Greece in Europe and in many Latin American countries, and after 1989 also in post-totalitarian states formerly ruled by communist regimes. A third element on which ombudsmen rely in their work thus crystallised - human rights.

This development - from the Swedish Parliament's concerns back in the 19th Century, via the growth of the welfare state, to the commitments of new democracies - has thus created the elements on which the work of contemporary ombudsmen, such as the European Ombudsman, is based. These elements are legality, good administration and human rights.

I will come back to the fact that the principle of transparency plays an important role in all these three elements. But first a few words about the European Ombudsman.

2.3 The European Ombudsman

The European Ombudsman as an institution was created by the Treaty of Maastricht, which also established the Citizenship of the European Union. The right to complaint to the European Ombudsman was made one of the basic rights attached to being a citizen of the European Union.

The first European Ombudsman was elected in July 1995 and took up office later the same year, which means that the institution will, later this year, have been in operation for 10 years.

We will celebrate this anniversary in different ways and fora in the course of the year.

The main task of the European Ombudsman is to investigate complaints about maladministration within the EU institutions and bodies. The EU institutions are the well known ones, such as, for instance, the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. The agencies are maybe less known, but one of them is the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, which is situated here in Greece, in Thessaloniki.

I am, as European Ombudsman, not entitled to deal with complaints against the EU Member States' national authorities. That is the task of the national or regional ombudsmen. I would like to mention here that the European Ombudsman co-operates with other ombudsmen in Europe through the European Network of Ombudsmen, in order to provide the best possible service to citizens and residents of the Member States throughout the European Union.

Having thus concluded against whom you can complain to me as European Ombudsman, we move on to the question about what you can complain to the European Ombudsman. This question brings us closer to the role that the concept of transparency plays in my daily work.

3 Maladministration

As already mentioned, my task as European Ombudsman is to investigate possible instances of maladministration within the EU administration. This is the review criterion laid down in the EC Treaty.

However, the EC Treaty does not define what maladministration is. This makes sense, particularly in light of how the ombudsman institution has evolved over the decades, not to say centuries.

Since the institution's first Annual Report in 1995, the European Ombudsman has consistently taken the view that three kinds of failure, which to a certain extent overlap, may give rise to a finding of maladministration:
- Failure to respect a legal rule or principle;
- Failure to respect the principles of good administration; or
- Failure to respect human or fundamental rights.

Recalling the three elements on which the work of contemporary ombudsmen is based - legality, good administration and human rights - you will note that the three kinds of "failures" encompassed by the European Ombudsman's concept of maladministration correspond exactly with these elements.

As I will seek to demonstrate, the principle of transparency recurs in relation to each of these three elements or "failures", which are under the investigatory power of the European Ombudsman.

But before I move on to concrete examples of measures taken by the Ombudsman in order to promote transparency, I would like to say a few words about the reason why I, as an Ombudsman, consider transparency to be of such importance in a democratic, European society.

4 Transparency with an eye to serving the citizens of Europe

The concept of transparency can, undoubtedly, be looked and argued upon from different angles. As the European Ombudsman, I endeavour to look at it first and foremost from the angle of the European citizens. This, after all, is my déformation professionelle!

The Treaty on European Union, the EU Treaty, which came into force in 1993, is said to mark a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen.

The European Union would be nothing without its peoples - its citizens - for which it is created.

The European Union is founded on common European values and principles such as democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law. I am of the firm belief that these principles are best served by a transparent and accountable administration, enabling the citizens to rest assured that what they see is what they get.

I consider my role as European Ombudsman to be the "guardian of good administration" in order to bring the citizens closer to the EU - or rather - to bring the EU closer to the citizens.

I will therefore now move on to explaining in what concrete ways I aspire to serve the European citizens by promoting transparency in the EU administration. I will then come back to the general importance of transparency in my concluding reflections.

5 The European Ombudsman's role in promoting transparency

As I mentioned when I spoke about the European Ombudsman's review criterion - maladministration - this criterion encompasses three different elements, namely the obligation to respect legal rules or principles, to respect principles of good administration, and to respect human or fundamental rights. I will now seek to demonstrate that the concept of transparency is an important part of all these three elements.

5.1 Legal rules or principles

Let me start by speaking about a transparency issue where I frequently take into account legal rules when carrying out my investigations, namely the area of the citizens' right of access to documents.

5.1.1 Access to documents

One of the European Ombudsman's very first concerns was indeed to promote more transparency in the EU institutions and bodies. I have mentioned that I carry out inquiries on the basis of complaints. However, when the Ombudsman institution itself comes across matters giving raise to concern, I also have the possibility to start inquiries on my own initiative. The European Ombudsman has used this possibility especially in the field of transparency and openness.

In June 1996, the then European Ombudsman, Mr Jacob Söderman, launched the very first own initiative inquiry concerning the issue of public access to documents held by the EU institutions and bodies.

At the time, there was no EU legislation on public access to documents, but the EU had - as mentioned - made a commitment to transparency.

Following the own initiative inquiry, the European Ombudsman recommended that all EU institutions and bodies, with the exception of the Commission and the Council which had already adopted rules on the matter, adopt and make easily available to the public rules governing public access to documents.

In a special report submitted to the European Parliament in December 1997, the Ombudsman noted that 13 of the 14 bodies to which the recommendations had been addressed had adopted rules governing public access to their documents. The Ombudsman concluded that this constituted a significant step forward in improving transparency in the EU administration.

As regards EU legislation on public access to documents, the Ombudsman also noted in his 1997 special report to Parliament that such legislation was foreseen in the Treaty of Amsterdam as regards access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. The Treaty of Amsterdam entered into force on 1 May 1999 and as from 3 December 2001, Regulation 1049/2001 applies to public access to documents held by these three institutions.

Consequently, legal rules now exist on public access to Parliament, Council and Commission documents. As for the other institutions and bodies, the rules adopted following the Ombudsman's own initiative inquiry still apply. A failure by the institutions to respect these rules constitutes an instance of maladministration.

The EU administration's adoption of rules in this regard, and the coming into force of Regulation 1049/2001, have significantly clarified matters for all partied concerned. The citizens now know what their rights are. The institutions and bodies have obtained clear guidance as to how to deal accurately with requests for access. And I have obtained clear criteria against which to investigate possible instances of maladministration in the area of access to documents.

I note in this regard that Regulation 1049/2001 defines its own purpose as laying down the principles, conditions and limits governing the right of access to Parliament, Council and Commission documents in such a way as to ensure widest possible access to documents.

5.2 Principles of good administration

Let me now move on to the second kind of "failure" falling under the Ombudsman's investigatory powers, namely the failure to respect the principles of good administration.

5.2.1 The European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour

In another own initiative inquiry, the European Ombudsman recommended that all EU institutions and bodies adopt a Code of Good Administrative Behaviour to set out the principles that the staff of the institutions and bodies should respect in their dealings with the public.

All institutions and bodies followed the Ombudsman's recommendation and adopted such codes. Some bodies adopted the Code proposed by the Ombudsman, others adopted their own codes. Some of these codes were drafted more as guidelines than as legally binding rules. In order to promote a unification of the rules, the Ombudsman made a Special Report to the European Parliament, calling for a European administrative law to be equally applicable to all institutions and bodies in their relations with the citizens.

In a resolution of September 2001, the European Parliament adopted the Ombudsman's Code of Good Administrative Behaviour and invited the Ombudsman to apply the code in his daily work. Parliament also invited the Commission to submit a proposal for a European administrative law.

The code contains the classic principles of administrative law, such as the principle of non discrimination, the right to be heard and to make statements and the indication of the possibilities of appeal.

However, the code also contains provisions safeguarding greater transparency. These provisions state, for instance, that officials shall be service-minded and accessible in their relation with the public and that, when replying to correspondence, they shall try to be as helpful as possible and shall reply as completely and accurately as possible to questions which are asked. In addition, every letter and complaint to the institutions shall receive an acknowledgement of receipt within two weeks, indicating the name and telephone number of the official dealing with the matter.

As regards requests for information, the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour requires officials to provide the public with the information that they request in a clear and understandable way. If the official receiving the request is not the person responsible for the matter, he or she shall direct the requester to the competent person and indicate that person's name and telephone number.

Acting as the guardian of good administration, I make extensive use of the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour in my work. The code as a whole contributes to openness and transparency by setting the standards for the institutions in their contacts with citizens, who in turn know what they should expect from the administration. And, correctly applied, the individual provisions of the Code make the administration much more accessible to European citizens.

I am there to ensure the correct application of these standards for the benefit of users and the public administration alike.

5.3 Human and fundamental rights

What about transparency as an element in human and fundamental rights to be protected by the Ombudsman?

5.3.1 The European Charter of Fundamental Rights

Needless to say, any failure to respect human or fundamental right by the EU institutions or bodies constitutes maladministration.

Let me note, in particular, that the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, proclaimed by the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission at the European Council meeting in Nice in December 2000, is the first fundamental rights instrument in the world including the right to good administration.

Despite the Charter not yet being legally binding, I take the view that it would not be good administration for the EU institutions and bodies to fail to respect the provisions of Charter that they have solemnly proclaimed.

I therefore apply the Charter in my daily work, considering the European Code of Good Administration to be an extension of the Charter that explains more in detail what the Charter's right to good administration means in practice.

In other words, the fundamental right to good administration includes the right to an open and accessible EU administration.

6 The European Ombudsman's contribution to the fight against corruption
6.1 The Ombudsman's contribution

Moving on to the issue of corruption in the public administration, needless to say, such practices do not belong in a democratic society.

Indeed, such practices go against the rule of law and the basic right of equal treatment and have to be vigorously fought against.

I am convinced, and all experience show, that greater transparency and openness in the public administration is negatively correlated with levels of corruption. An open and transparent public administration cannot hide corrupt practices but will have to answer for its actions.

My contribution as European Ombudsman to combating corruption therefore lies mainly in my work promoting greater openness and transparency in the EU administration, with an eye to attaining greater accountability among the EU institutions and bodies.

Let me also add that applying the principles of good administration as such limits corruption. Adhering to the principles of good administration involves establishing and following clear rules and principles about how civil servants should behave, including rules on how to handle conflicts and potential conflicts of interest. Such clear rules and principles help avoid confusion - both for the civil servants themselves and for the citizens - about what is legitimate and what is not. Confusion in this regard could otherwise have a corrosive effect on personal standards of behaviour.

6.2 Other EU institutions and bodies combating corruption

Maybe surprisingly, but hopefully encouragingly - I have received rather few complaints concretely alleging corruption in the EU administration.

However, this might just show that the public knows about, and turns directly to, other EU bodies more directly involved in combating corruption and fraud.

First and foremost, there is the EU body in charge of investigating and acting against fraud, corruption and other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the EU, namely the European Anti-fraud Office, OLAF. I note that OLAF has a wider mandate than the European Ombudsman in that OLAF also has a role in fighting fraud at the Member State level which adversely affects the EU's financial interests.

In matters related to fraud and corruption, I have consistently advised complainants to turn to OLAF as the body specialised in dealing with these issues.

Another EU institution contributing to the fight against corruption and fraud is the European Court of Auditors, which carries out independent audits of the collection and spending of EU funds.

It should be noted in this regard that both OLAF and the Court of Auditors fall under my investigatory powers. Consequently, I can - within the limits of my mandate - investigate the two bodies' procedures, making sure that they carry out their tasks in accordance with the principles of good administration.

As an additional point concerning possible complaints relating to corruption and fraud, I would like to point out that if, in the course of my inquiries, I learn of a fact that might relate to criminal law, I have to immediately notify the competent national authorities. And, if legal proceedings are instituted in relation to matters under my investigation, I have to stop my investigation and close the case.

7 Transparency in the EU administration - some concluding reflections

To conclude:

Greater transparency and openness in the EU administration is one of the main aims of my work as European Ombudsman. As I have explained, the notion of transparency runs through the three elements on which the work of an ombudsman is based: legality, good administration and human rights.

Over the years and following the European Ombudsman's intervention, many citizens and residents of the EU have obtained access to EU documents and have been provided with more complete replies to their questions and information requests. If my inquiries have revealed no maladministration by the institutions or bodies concerned, then the complainants have nevertheless been provided with in depth explanations as to why I have considered this to be the case. Accordingly, irrespective of their outcome, my inquiries have all contributed to greater openness and accountability.

In the beginning, the European Ombudsman had to struggle to be recognised by the other institutions and bodies. This was especially the case since the Ombudsman's views on certain issues, such as transparency in the public administration, went against the ruling policy or practice or, more broadly, administrative culture. This happened regularly as the first European Ombudsman came from a Member State - Finland - with a long tradition in openness in the public administration, having had an ombudsman watching over the administration since 1919.

But with carefully considered and formulated decisions and on the basis of the good collaboration built up over the years with all the EU institutions, the European Ombudsman has managed to gain respect and ensure very high compliance with his recommendations, despite the fact that an ombudsman's decisions, by definition, are not legally binding on the parties.

As I have explained, many of the European Ombudsman's inquiries have resulted in the adoption of new rules and practices opening up the European administration, little by little, and bringing it closer to its citizens.

There is, of course, still much work to do in guarding the rules and procedures already put in place in the area of openness and transparency, but also in improving the rules and practices further, with an eye to closing the psychological gap that exists between the EU institutions and the European citizens.

I believe the task of bringing the EU administration closer to the citizens to be crucial for the European Union's future achievements and prosperity.

I also believe that a culture of openness and efficiency is needed whenever and wherever an administration is putting EU law into practice.

A similar approach was evident from the speech delivered by Mr Siim Kallas, Vice-President of the European Commission and Commissioner for Administrative Affairs, Audit and Anti-Fraud, at the Nottingham Business School on 3 March this year.

As mentioned in my introduction, Commissioner Kallas, in his speech, argued in favour of the principles of transparency and freedom of information, pointing out that transparency "is an essential prerequisite for the integrity and credibility of /.../ political institutions". Commissioner Kallas therefore launched the "European Transparency Initiative", which aims at strengthening transparency throughout Europe. According to Commissioner Kallas, a communication announcing specific, possibly legislative, action on EU level and recommendations to Member States and other stakeholders, could be presented this autumn.

I welcome this initiative, which shows a reassuring commitment to enlarged transparency and openness in the enlarged Europe.

I have therefore offered my services to Commissioner Kallas in carrying out the European Transparency Initiative and I have suggested that a natural complement would be an initiative to ensure that all EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies are subject to a uniform set of principles, such as those set out in the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.

Rules on good administrative behaviour commonly applicable to all EU bodies would not only help raise the notion of good administration to a higher level, but would also - as I hope to have made clear in my speech here today - further promote transparency and, accordingly, contribute to combating corruption - a goal shared by Transparency International and by active citizens like the ones who have honoured me by their presence here today.

Thank you very much for your attention.