Introduction

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the presentation of my Annual Report 2009. Before I give you the latest statistics from last year, let me say that I am delighted to be here, following the decision of the European Parliament to re-elect me in January for another five-year mandate.

This re-election enables me to make full use of the new provisions of the Lisbon Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights which are of great importance to my work. This includes, for example, the fundamental right to good administration or the new European Citizens Initiative, where I expect the Ombudsman institution to play an important role. I will say a few words about these changes at the end of my short presentation.

As you know, I investigate complaints about maladministration in the European institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, such as the Commission, the European Parliament, or the Council. Maladministration encompasses all kinds of poor or improper administrative behaviour, from late payment for EU projects to the unjustified refusal to give out a document or information or simply failure to reply to a letter.

Key statistics of 2009

The year 2009 began with the launch of our new website, including an interactive guide which is accessible in all 23 languages. This guide aims to direct complainants to the body best placed to help them, be it my own services, the services of national or regional ombudsmen in the Member States or other cross border problem solving mechanisms, such as SOLVIT. More than 30 000 citizens have already made use of this guide.

One immediate result of the guide has been a reduction of 10% in the number of complaints to my office, with complainants now finding the right address first time around. In 2009, I received a total of 3,098 complaints compared to 3,406 complaints in 2008. We should not underestimate how important it is for citizens to be guided to the most appropriate complaint-handling body from the outset and to be spared the frustrations and delays associated with having to identify the right institution on their own.

A further source of encouragement to me is that more people are turning to my institution for the right reason. Largely thanks to our enhanced information efforts towards citizens, companies, associations, NGOs and other potential complainants, we opened 14% more inquiries in 2009 than in the previous year. To give you the absolute numbers: in 2009, we opened 339 inquiries, compared to 293 opened inquiries in 2008.

In almost 80% of all cases, my office was able to help the complainant by opening an inquiry into the case, transferring it to a competent body, or giving advice on where to turn.

In 2009, we closed 318 inquiries. I am pleased to note that in more than half of these cases, namely 56%, the institution concerned accepted a friendly solution or settled the matter. In the previous year, this percentage was one third.

Further good news is the sustained reduction in critical remarks issued by my office. We made critical remarks in 35 cases in 2009 compared to 44 cases in 2008.

Most of the inquiries opened in 2009 concerned the European Commission, namely, 56%. This is not surprising, given that the Commission represents the biggest part of the EU administration. It was followed by the European Parliament, the European Personnel Selection Office, the Council and the Court of Justice of the EU. I should mention that while the number of inquiries concerning these institutions increased, the number of inquiries concerning the Commission fell by four in 2009.

Regarding the origin of complaints, I can tell you that Germany remained the source of the greatest number of complaints, followed by Spain and then Poland and France, who share third place. But relative to the size of their population, most complaints came from Luxembourg, Malta, Cyprus and Belgium. You will find details about the complaints per country in the Annual Report and in the map and figures contained in the last page of the Overview.

I am happy to report that the time taken to complete inquiries fell from an average of 13 months in 2008 to nine months in 2009. It is important to mention that this figure of nine months includes cases that were resolved very quickly, usually by telephone. We aim to reduce even further the time taken to achieve results through inquiries.

Content of complaints

Let me now turn to the content of the complaints. In 2009, by far the most common allegation examined by the Ombudsman was lack of transparency in the EU administration. This allegation arose in 36% of all inquiries and included refusal of information or access to documents. It is with a certain degree of concern that I have noted the consistently high number of complaints alleging lack of transparency. After all, an accountable and transparent EU administration is key to building citizens' trust in the EU.

Other types of alleged maladministration concerned late payments for EU projects, unfairness, abuse of power, discrimination, and procedural errors.

Let me give you an example, falling into this latter category: The Ombudsman criticised the Commission for failing to make a proper note of a meeting with computer manufacturer Dell during an antitrust investigation of the chip producer Intel. This followed a complaint from Intel arguing that the meeting directly concerned the subject-matter of the investigation. The Ombudsman stated that he hoped his decision would help the Commission to improve its administrative procedures by ensuring that its future antitrust investigations are fully documented.

You will find a whole range of other case examples in the press release, the Overview and the Annual Report itself.

Changes after Lisbon

As you know, the Charter of Fundamental Rights is now legally binding and contains the fundamental right to good administration. Good administration requires greater transparency as well as a commitment to nurture a culture of service in the EU administration. When I was re-elected, I promised to work hard to ensure that these rights are taken seriously by the EU administration.

The Charter also provides for the fundamental right of access to documents of the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. This constitutes a significant improvement, extending the right of access to documents held not only by the European Parliament, Council and Commission but by all EU institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies, including, for the first time, the European Council.

Another very important provision in the Treaty is the "European Citizens' Initiative". One million citizens from a number of Member States will have the possibility to call on the European Commission to bring forward new legislative proposals. Following a consultation with the public, in which I intervened, the Commission recently presented its proposals on how to put this initiative into practice. It is possible that the Ombudsman will receive complaints from groups and individuals who are dissatisfied with the Commission's handling of their initiatives. The Ombudsman will of course be available as one of the appeals mechanisms in this area.

Conclusion

My most important priority for the next five years is to help citizens make full use of their rights, as provided for under the Treaty of Lisbon and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I am committed to informing citizens about their rights. In pursuit of this goal, I will cooperate closely with the European Parliament and the national and regional ombudsmen in the Member States.

Thank you very much for your attention. I am now happy to answer your questions.