Strasbourg, 20 December 2006

Dear Mr S.,

On 11 February 2006, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the way in which a request for information, made by telephone, had been handled by the Council of the European Union. By e-mails of 16 and 17 March 2006, you provided further information on your complaint.

On 31 March 2006, I forwarded the complaint to the Secretary-General of the Council. The Council sent its opinion in Swedish on 11 July 2006. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished, by 31 October 2006. No observations have been received from you.

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

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the relevant facts are, in summary, the following:

On 6 February 2006, he telephoned the European Commission to ask whether the Commission or the Council of the European Union had any obligations or possibilities to express their support for Denmark in its disaccord with a number of Muslim countries. The telephone call was made to the number +3222991111 and as far as he remembers it was made just after noon. The person at the Commission who answered his telephone call did not state her name but she explained that the question was too complicated for her to answer. She suggested that he telephone Mr Solana at the Council directly and provided him with the following telephone number to do so: +3222856111. At this number of the Council, a male person answered. However, the person answering did not state his name either. The complainant asked for Mr Solana and was put through to a female secretary who did not state her name and who told him that he could not speak to Mr Solana. The secretary said that the question was not easy to answer and she put him through to the person responsible for contacts with the press. That person could not answer the question either.

The following day, he contacted the Commission's Representation in Stockholm and got to speak to the Eurojus lawyer, who did state his name. The lawyer provided a reply by e-mail, which, although containing interesting information about the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union, did not answer his question. However, the lawyer was at least helpful and showed a genuine interest in trying to help.

The question thus remained unanswered and the complainant was dissatisfied with the way in which he was treated when contacting Brussels. No one showed any interest in replying to his question or referred him to someone who could reply. The fact that none of the persons to whom he had spoken cared to state his or her name made things even more complicated.

The complainant alleged that, when dealing with his request for information made by telephone on 6 February 2006, the Council failed to act in accordance with its policy of increased openness and friendliness towards citizens(1).

THE INQUIRY

The Council's opinion

In its opinion, the Council made, in summary, the following comments:

Its policy as regards the answering of telephone calls made by members of the public is laid down in the Code of good administrative behaviour for the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union and its staff in their professional relations with the public(2) ("the Code"). The relevant articles of the Code provide as follows:

"Article 5 Courtesy

Members of staff shall act in a conscientious, correct, courteous and approachable manner. In replying to correspondence or telephone calls or in any other professional contact with the public, they shall endeavour to be as helpful as possible.

Article 6 Provision of information

1. Members of staff shall provide the public with the information requested, falling within their area of responsibility. They shall ensure that the information is as clear and comprehensible as possible.

2. If, for reasons of confidentiality and/or pursuant to applicable rules (in particular Article 17 of the Staff Regulations), a member of staff considers that he is unable to divulge the information requested, the reasons why such information cannot be provided shall be given to the person concerned.

Article 8 Telephone calls

1. When answering the telephone, members of staff shall identify themselves and their service. They shall also establish the identity of the caller. Unless reasons of confidentiality, as referred to in Article 6(2), prevent it, they shall provide the requested information or direct the caller to the appropriate source. However, in cases of hesitation as to whether that information may be provided, they shall consult their hierarchy or refer callers to their superior.

2. Should an oral request for information be imprecise or complex, the member of staff approached may ask the person concerned to formulate the request in writing."

The Council is committed to following these guidelines. However, it has no trace of the events referred to by the complainant and it is therefore unable to verify whether his presentation of the facts is accurate. If indeed one or more Council officials failed to provide their names, the Council regrets this omission. The importance of adhering to the Code is regularly pointed out to staff of the General Secretariat.

The complainant argues that the Commission provided him with the telephone number of Mr Solana. It is not quite certain whether the complaint also concerns the fact that the complainant was unable to speak to Mr Solana personally. Nevertheless, the Council would like to take the opportunity to clarify that it is not Mr Solana's task to reply in person to questions from the public even if his very busy schedule would allow him to do so. There is no Member State in which persons holding posts similar to that of Mr Solana have a different practice. Under these circumstances, it is not unreasonable to refer members of the public to the press office.

Similarly, it is not unreasonable that a secretary and a press officer were unable to provide an answer. In this respect, it is recalled that the complainant wished to enquire whether the institutions were able, or obliged, to express support for Denmark in its conflict with several Muslim countries, which meant expressing the position of the institution. At that time, the Council was still considering its detailed position on the matter.

Under such circumstances, it is difficult to imagine what meaningful reply could have been given to the complainant, especially since a reply given over the telephone could easily have been misinterpreted as an official point of view of the Council, which had not yet adopted a position.

The complainant's observations

The complainant was invited to submit observations on the Council's opinion. No observations were received from the complainant.

THE DECISION

1 The Council's handling of the complainant's request for information

1.1 The complaint concerns the way in which the complainant's request for information, made by telephone, was handled by the Council. According to the complainant, he telephoned the Commission on 6 February 2006 to ask whether the Commission or the Council had any obligations or possibilities to express their support for Denmark in its disaccord with a number of Muslim countries. The person at the Commission who answered his telephone call explained that the question was too complicated for her to answer, and suggested that he telephone Mr Solana at the Council directly. He was provided with the following telephone number to do so: +3222856111. At this number of the Council, a male person answered. However, the person answering did not state his name either. The complainant asked for Mr Solana and was put through to a female secretary who did not state her name and who told him that he could not speak to Mr Solana. The secretary said that the question was not easy to answer and she put him through to the person responsible for contacts with the press. That person could not answer the question either. The question thus remained unanswered and the complainant was dissatisfied with the way in which he was treated when contacting Brussels. According to the complainant, no one showed any interest in replying to his question or referred him to someone who could reply. The fact that none of the persons spoken to cared to state his or her name made things even more complicated. The complainant alleged that, when dealing with his request for information made by telephone on 6 February 2006, the Council failed to act in accordance with its policy of increased openness and friendliness towards citizens(3).

1.2 The Council referred to Articles 5, 6 and 8 of its Code of good administrative behaviour for the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union and its staff in their professional relations with the public(4), assuring the Ombudsman of its commitment to following these guidelines. The Council further argued that, since it has no trace of the events referred to by the complainant, it is unable to verify whether his presentation of the facts is accurate. If indeed one or more Council officials failed to provide their names, the Council regrets this omission. The importance of adhering to the Code is regularly pointed out to staff of the General Secretariat. According to the Council, it is not Mr Solana's task to reply in person to questions from the public even if his very busy schedule would allow him to do so, and it is not unreasonable to refer members of the public to the press office. Similarly, it is not unreasonable that a secretary and a press officer were unable to provide an answer. In this respect, it is recalled that the complainant wished to enquire whether the institutions were able, or obliged, to express support for Denmark in its conflict with several Muslim countries, which meant expressing the position of the institution. At that time, the Council still discussed its detailed position on the matter. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to imagine what meaningful reply could have been given to the complainant, especially since a reply given over the telephone could easily have been misinterpreted as an official point of view of the Council, which had not yet adopted a position.

1.3 Before analysing the complainant's allegation, the Ombudsman considers it necessary to address the Council's argument that, since it has no trace of the events referred to by the complainant, it is unable to verify whether his presentation of the facts is accurate. The Ombudsman fully understands that a complaint concerning the contents and circumstances of telephone conversations can be difficult to deal with for an administration, given that no written records concerning these conversations may exist. However, regard should be had to the fact that the present complaint was lodged soon after the relevant telephone conversations had taken place and was forwarded to the Council only a few weeks later. It should thus not have been impossible to ascertain the relevant facts. However, the Ombudsman notes in this regard that the Council has not explained whether and, if so, in what way it has tried to trace the events referred to by the complainant. The Ombudsman further notes in this regard that it should at least have been possible for the Council to identify and consult the last person to whom the complainant spoke. He further notes that the Council, whilst stressing that it was unable to verify whether the complainant's presentation of the facts was accurate, did not dispute the fact that the relevant telephone conversations had taken place. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that he is entitled to base his assessment on the complainant's account of the events.

1.4 In analysing the complainant's allegation, the Ombudsman recalls that Article 12(1) of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour(5) ("the Code") stipulates that "[t]he official shall be service-minded, correct, courteous and accessible in relations with the public. When answering correspondence, telephone calls and e-mails, the official shall try to be as helpful as possible and shall reply as completely and accurately as possible to questions which are asked." Article 12(2) of the Code further stipulates that "[i]f the official is not responsible for the matter concerned, he shall direct the citizen to the appropriate official." The Ombudsman also recalls that Article 22(2) of the Code stipulates that "[i]f an oral request for information is too complicated or to comprehensive to be dealt with, the [responsible] official shall advise the person concerned to formulate his demand in writing."

1.5 As regards the obligation for Council staff to direct callers to the appropriate official, the Ombudsman does not consider it unreasonable for the complainant to have been directed to the press office with his request for information. Since the Council's press office is in charge of providing journalists with information and documentation on subjects under discussion in the Council and its preparatory bodies(6), it should normally be aware of the Council's position on different matters.

1.6 However, the Ombudsman is not convinced by the Council's argument that it was not unreasonable for the press officer not to be able to provide an answer to the complainant's request since the Council had not yet, at the time, adopted a position on the matter and the Council's further argument that, under such circumstances, it was difficult to imagine what meaningful reply could have been given to the complainant. The Ombudsman considers that if the reason why the press officer could not provide an answer to the complainant's question was that a Council position on the matter did not yet exist, the press officer could and should have provided this information to the complainant. If the reason why the press officer was unable to provide an answer was that he did not have the necessary knowledge, it would have been appropriate for him to advise the complainant to make a written request for information in accordance with Article 22(2) of the Code. It appears, however, that neither such information nor such advice was given to the complainant in the present case. This constitutes an instance of maladministration and the Ombudsman will make a critical remark in this regard.

1.7 As regards the complainant's argument that the Council staff failed to identify themselves when answering the telephone, the Ombudsman considers that the requirement in Article 12(1) of the Code that officials shall be service-minded, correct, courteous and accessible in relations with the public means that, when answering the telephone, officials have to provide information as to whom the caller has reached. The Ombudsman notes that this approach is upheld in Article 8 of the Council's own Code of good administrative behaviour, which stipulates that when answering the telephone, members of staff shall identify themselves and their service. However, the Ombudsman notes the Council's statement that, if indeed, one or more Council officials failed to provide their names, the Council regrets this omission. According to the Council, the importance of adhering to its Code of good administrative behaviour is regularly pointed out to its staff. In light of the fact that the Council has expressed its regret if an omission in this regard occurred, and having assured the Ombudsman of its commitment to adhering by its Code of good administrative behaviour, the Ombudsman finds no grounds to pursue further inquiries into this aspect of the complaint.

2 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, it is necessary to make the following critical remark as regards the Council's handling of the complainant's request for information:

The Ombudsman is not convinced by the Council's argument that it was not unreasonable for the press officer not to be able to provide an answer to the complainant's request since the Council had not yet, at the time, adopted a position on the matter and the Council's further argument that, under such circumstances, it was difficult to imagine what meaningful reply could have been given to the complainant. The Ombudsman considers that if the reason why the press officer could not provide an answer to the complainant's question was that a Council position on the matter did not yet exist, the press officer could and should have provided this information to the complainant. If the reason why the press officer was unable to provide an answer was that he or she did not have the necessary knowledge, it would have been appropriate for him or her to advise the complainant to make a written request for information in accordance with Article 22(2) of the Code. It appears, however, that neither such information nor such advice was given to the complainant in the present case. This constitutes an instance of maladministration.

Given that this aspect of the case concerns procedures relating to specific events in the past, it is not appropriate to pursue a friendly settlement of the matter.

The Ombudsman has found no grounds to further pursue the issue of Council officials failing to provide their names when answering the telephone.

The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The Secretary-General of the Council will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) The complainant made the same allegation against the Commission, which is dealt with as a separate case (complaint 415/2006/TN) and will involve a separate decision.

(2) OJ 2001 C 189, p. 2.

(3) The complainant made the same allegation against the European Commission. The complaint against the Comission is dealt with as a separate case (complaint 415/2006/TN) and will involve a separate decision.

(4) OJ 2001 C 189, p. 2.

(5) The European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour is available on the Ombudsman's website (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/code/pdf/en/code2005_en.pdf).

(6) See page 8 of the Council's Media Guide. The Guide is available on the Council's website (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/EN_MGUIDE%20INT.pdf).