Emily O'Reilly
European Ombudsman
Thursday, 24 September 2015

Thank you and good afternoon. I’m grateful for the invitation to be here with you today in order to present my office and our work.

I think it is important to stress at the outset how important I consider the relationship between my office and the Council to be given the obligations we both have to serve the needs of citizens, and to ensure that the EU executive is fully accountable for its administration. Indeed 75% of our complaints are against the Commission and EU agencies. My office receives over 2000 complaints a year from all of your Member States, in all 24 official languages.

The European Ombudsman, as you know, was established under the 1992 Maastricht Treaty to deepen the democratic legitimacy of the EU institutions by giving citizens an independent office to which they can turn if they feel badly treated by EU institution, agency or body. This mirrors what all of them can do in their own member states with their own national or regional Ombudsman, or Petitions Committee, when they feel badly treated by their own domestic administration. Important efforts were made by the Spanish and Danish delegations in the run-up to its establishment and the European Ombudsman owes its existence to their efforts, but also to other delegations engaged in the creation of this office.

From the very beginning, co-operation between us has been good. The Council has always tried to engage honestly with our work and while relatively few cases to date have come before the office as regards the Council itself, I can probably anticipate a greater number in the future as citizen engagement and scrutiny of all of our institutions increase and especially at times of turbulence such as now. As we know, the EU is operating more and more in a political space and not only the diplomatic or technocratic space of the past.

My recommendations and decisions are not enforceable in a strictly legal sense but all institutions and agencies implement the vast majority. Why? Firstly, because I believe they recognise my democratic mandate under the Treaties to make such recommendations and decisions, but also because we all have an interest in an ever improving EU administration. This is not only important as regards our service to citizens but in strictly budgetary terms, good administration as we know saves money.

My colleagues and I always try to be rigorous, fair, and also understanding of the often challenging environment in which particularly the major institutions operate.

All I ask, as we face greater demands for accountability and transparency from our citizens, is that we engage in honest and open dialogue at all levels, real conversations, not just legal argument, in order to arrive at solutions that are correct, and acceptable – as far as possible – to everyone

I appreciate the efforts made by the Council to ensure transparency and democratic accountability at the EU level. This includes the Council holding its session in public when discussing or voting on legislation and providing public access to documents. This is clearly in line not just with the law, but also with the spirit of the Treaties that guide all of our work. There is still more to be done but I acknowledge the work that has already been done. I also commend you on the new Council website and public register of documents.

I would like to explain to you now about my own strategy, as the third Ombudsman since 1995. The first Ombudsman, Jacob Soderman had the heavy task of setting the office up and encouraging both the citizens to make complaints, and the institutions not to be afraid of the complaints but to deal with them openly and honestly. The second Ombudsman, Nikiforos Diamandouros, widened the scope and scale of the office by introducing guides and codes of good administrative behaviour for example.

And now in 2015, as the office celebrates its 20^th anniversary, I want to make the office, quite simply, more useful, and more relevant. To this end, my strategy aims to use our limited resources in a highly strategic way by identifying those areas of EU public administration where we can secure the most effective outcomes for the citizen and indeed for the public administration itself.

So, alongside the streamlining of our complaints procedure in order to get faster and better outcomes for complainants, I am also conducting a series of strategic inquiries in which we examine more systemic issues of possible maladministration. In doing so, I hope not just to help the administration to solve a difficulty, but also to stop or at least reduce repeat complaints on a particular issue.

Over the past two year, I have to date conducted strategic investigations into the:

• transparency of the TTIP negotiations, on which I think this new Commission is working hard;
• how the Commission deals with the so-called 'revolving door' challenge whereby officials leave the Commission and take up private sector roles, even at times for American or Chinese companies;
• how the Commission ensures the respect for fundamental rights in the implementation of the EU cohesion policy;
• and how the Commission ensures transparency and balance in terms of its system of Expert Groups;

At you may know we are currently working on the issue of transparency of the Trilogues process, and I appreciate the good co-operation of the three main institutions on this important issue.

 

As European Ombudsman, I also chair a network of Member State Ombudsmen at national, regional, and petitions committee level. Again, in order to make our co-operation as useful as possible, I have begun to explore ways in which we can conduct parallel investigations into matters that have both national and EU relevance. We worked this year on issues concerning Frontex and the joint operations with member states that return those refused asylum in the EU to their own or a third country. I hope to develop this method of collaborative working with my colleagues so that together we can provide an even better service for the citizens of the EU. Already we are exploring ways in which we can be of some service in the current migration crisis, and particularly in that area of the protection of fundamental rights.

Transparency – access to documents – is of course one of the biggest areas that my office deals with on a daily basis. I support the statement from Recital 2 of Regulation 1049 that:

"Openness enables citizens to participate more closely in the decision-making process and guarantees that the administration enjoys greater legitimacy and is more effective and more accountable to the citizen in a democratic system. Openness contributes to strengthening the principles of democracy and respect for fundamental rights."

You are aware that there is yet no movement on Commission proposals tabled to amend Regulation 1049 and the considerable debate there has been around the proposals. Clearly there is a need to update and refine the Regulation, not just to bring it properly in line with the Lisbon Treaty but also to reflect the transparency and accountability demands of 2015 where citizens – and particularly the younger generation of citizens – have far less tolerance of anything which seem like government behind closed doors than was the case at the turn of the century. Regulation 1049, in its current form, would not constitute the type of comprehensive 'Freedom of Information' law which many individual Member States already have and which is an indispensable instrument for promoting transparency in government. I would ask the Council to give consideration as to how it could play its part in moving this issue from the stalemate it now appears to have arrived at.

As you know, my office is currently dealing with three transparency cases concerning the Council. The first concerns the refusal to grant full access to documents concerning certain Joint Operations in the area of irregular migration, and we still are awaiting a date from the Council for our inspection of the documents.

The second complaint concerns the opinions of the panel which examines judicial candidates to the Court of Justice and the General Court; I am currently waiting for the Council's opinion which is due by 31 October.

Most recently, I closed an inquiry with a finding of no maladministration by the Council in a complaint concerning the Council's handling of a request for public access to documents regarding sanctions imposed on Iran.

So that is just a brief overview of our work. I want to conclude by reiterating that I see my role as that of supporting not just the citizens of the Member States but also the institutions of the EU.

I seek to work as co-operatively and openly as possible with those representing the institutions and those staff working within the institutions. I welcome this encounter in that spirit and I and my colleagues are happy to try and answer any questions you may have, or listen to any observations on our work.

Thank you.