Strasbourg, 3 April 2007

Dear Mr X,

On 5 April 2006, you lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman against both the European Commission and the Council of the European Union. Your complaint concerned the inaccessibility for people with disabilities of the EU information centre in Brussels, jointly run by the Commission and the Council.

Since your complaint concerned two EU institutions, I decided to open two separate inquiries with different reference numbers: complaint 1125/2006/JMA against the Commission and complaint 1465/2006/JMA against the Council. In view of the fact, however, that both complaints contain identical allegations and claims regarding the same problem, this decision will deal jointly with both cases.

On 11 April, 14 and 19 May, and 12 June 2006, you sent additional information.

On 31 May 2006, I informed both the President of the European Commission and the Secretary-General of the Council of your complaints, and asked them to submit an opinion on them by 31 August 2006. On 9 August 2006, the Council sent its opinion to me, which I forwarded to you with an invitation to make observations.

On 12 July 2006, the Commission requested an extension of the deadline for its opinion until the end of September 2006. I granted the Commission's request on 7 August 2006. On that date, I informed you of that extension. On 24 October 2006, the Commission informed me that its opinion on the case was delayed, but that it would be dispatched shortly. On 15 November 2006, the Commission sent its opinion to me, which I forwarded to you with an invitation to make observations.

On 9 October 2006, you submitted your written observations on the Council's opinion and, on 8 December 2006, you sent your observations on the Commission's opinion.

On 4 January 2007, the Commission sent additional information, which I forwarded to you on 23 January 2007, with an invitation to make observations. You sent your observations on 19 February 2007.

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

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the facts of the case are, in summary, as follows:

In October 2005, the complainant visited the EU information centre "Info-Point Europe" located at Rond-Point Schuman, in Brussels ( Belgium). The centre is jointly run by the Commission and the Council. The complainant was surprised that the centre's main entrance was not accessible for wheelchair users or other people with reduced mobility.

On 9 November 2005, the complainant wrote to Commission Vice-President Wallström, and to the Council's Secretary-General, Mr Solana, complaining about the situation. In her reply of 7 December 2005, Mrs Wallström acknowledged the problem, and indicated that both the Commission and the Council had decided to modify the main entrance to their information centre in order to provide suitable access to the building for people with disabilities.

Despite the assurances of Mrs Wallström, the complainant argued that no works had been undertaken at the entrance of the information centre.

The allegation on which the Ombudsman asked both the Commission and the Council to submit their opinions was the following:

The complainant alleges that the newly-housed Info-Point Europe located at Rond-Point Schuman in Brussels is not accessible to wheelchair users or other people with reduced mobility.

The complainant claims that the Info-Point should be made fully accessible to people with disabilities.

THE INQUIRY

The Council's opinion

In its opinion, the Council gave first some background information. It explained that, since its inception, the EU information centre located at Rond-Point Schuman in Brussels had been jointly run by the Council and the Commission, on the basis of a lease signed with the owner of the building in which the centre is housed. The centre has two entrances, the main entrance located on Rond-Point Schuman, and a side entrance on Archimède street.

As regards the side entrance on Archimède street, the Council explained that the single step outside this entrance cannot be removed as a result of an underground car park slip-road which lies beneath. The Council further noted that no refurbishing was possible on that entrance since town planning regulations prohibit the installation of wheelchair ramps on the pavement. The Council undertook however to install an additional entry phone at this side entrance in order to allow staff from the ground floor reception, and the main part of the information centre of the first floor, to assist disabled persons in gaining access through the main entrance.

As regards the main entrance, the Council explained that a five-centimetre step giving access to the information centre made it impossible for wheelchair users to take it. The Council had already taken the initiative to ask the building's owner to reduce the size of the step to two centimetres, in accordance with the initial requirements of the lease.

The Council argued that despite the deficiencies of the building's structure, it had decided to locate its information centre at Rond-Point Schuman because of the latter's strategic location near all the major EU institutions.

The Council also explained that it had begun, jointly with the Commission, to improve access to the information centre in a further effort to make it more accessible for wheelchair users and other people with reduced mobility. On the basis of this solution, the main entrance, which was to become accessible to wheelchair users, would be the sole entrance to the Info-Point.

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion, the Commission stated that, even though it shared with the Council the use of the EU information centre at Rond-Point Schuman, only the Council was signatory to the lease. Although the Commission is not therefore a party to the contract, it was committed to improving the accessibility of the building for wheelchair users and other people with reduced mobility.

The Commission emphasised that, following the complainant's letter to the Commission, its services had already carried out a number of measures to improve the situation. The Commission explained that a videophone system had been installed at the entrance at Archimède street in order to enable visitors to ask for assistance if necessary. Furthermore, an additional receptionist had begun working at the centre as from 1 September 2006 in order to respond to the needs of visitors who require assistance to enter the building.

In addition to these temporary measures, the Commission has, with the landlord's approval, agreed to carry out the necessary structural works in the near future. These works include adjusting the side entrance from the interior by reducing the height of the paving slab and creating a slight gradient, thus enabling access for wheelchair users and other people with reduced mobility.

The Commission concluded by underlining the importance it gives to preventing any discrimination against disabled people, and undertook to do whatever appears necessary to put this commitment into practice.

The complainant's observations on the Council's opinion

The complainant welcomed the commitments made by the Council on the modification of the entrance to the information centre. He expressed concern however about the lack of a precise date by which the structural works would be completed. In this vein, the complainant noted that, on 9 November 2005, he had already approached both the Council and the Commission asking them when the works would be completed. The complainant pointed out that, notwithstanding their public statements, the information centre continued to be inaccessible for persons with disabilities. He requested therefore that these institutions set a clear date for the completion of the work.

The complainant also mentioned that he was not aware that any temporary solution had yet been implemented.

The complainant's observations on the Commission's opinion

In his letter, the complainant welcomed the commitments undertaken by the Commission in response to his complaint. He noted however the unusual length of time the responsible institutions were taking in order to solve the problem. In his view, the structural works should be completed as soon as possible. The complainant therefore requested that a date for the completion of the work should be given.

The complainant concluded by requesting that all EU institutions should ensure that accessibility considerations are systematically integrated into all decision-making and procurement procedures involving European premises.

FURTHER INFORMATION

On 21 December 2006, Commission Vice-President Wallström wrote to the Ombudsman, enclosing with her letter a copy of her correspondence with the complainant. Mrs Wallström explained that the necessary work to ensure that the main entrance to the EU information centre at Rond-Point Schuman was now accessible for citizens with reduced mobility had been completed.

The complainant's observations on the Commission's further information

In his observation on the additional information from the Commission, the complainant stated that he was pleased that the promised work had been completed and that, as a result, the entry to the EU information centre was now accessible to all. He expressed concern however at the length of time it had taken to remove one single step.

The complainant also noted that the identification, within the institutions, of a clear chain of responsibility for matters related to accessibility should be essential to avoid similar instances of maladministration from occurring in the future.

THE DECISION

1 Preliminary remark

1.1 The present complaint was addressed to both the Council of the EU and the European Commission, and concerned the inaccessibility for persons with disabilities of the EU information centre in Brussels, jointly run by the Commission and the Council.

Since the complaint was addressed against two different institutions, the Ombudsman decided to register it under two different registration numbers: complaint 1125/2006/JMA against the Commission, and complaint 1465/2006/JMA against the Council.

1.2 In view of the fact, however, that both complaints contain identical allegations and claims about the same problem, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate to deal with them in a single decision.

2 Inaccessibility of EU premises for people with disabilities

2.1 The complainant alleges that the newly-housed Info-Point Europe located at Rond-Point Schuman in Brussels is not accessible to wheelchair users or to other people with reduced mobility.

The complainant claims that the Info-Point should be made fully accessible to people with disabilities.

Even though the complainant had approached both the Commission and the Council to complain against the above situation, no action had been taken effectively to remedy the problem.

2.2 The Council in its opinion explains that the main entrance to the information centre could not be used by people with reduced mobility because of the existence of a five-centimetre step but that it already took the initiative to ask the building's owner to reduce the size of the step, as foreseen in the lease.

The Council also explains that the information centre is jointly run with the Commission and that, despite its deficiencies, it accepted the centre's location at Rond-Point Schuman because of its strategic position near all the major EU institutions.

2.3 The Commission argues that, although it is not a party to the lease signed between the Council and the landowner, it is committed to improving the accessibility of the information centre for wheelchair users and other people with reduced mobility. Accordingly, it agreed to carry out the necessary structural works in the near future by adjusting the side entrance from the interior and thus enabling access for wheelchair users and other people with reduced mobility.

2.4 In his observations on both the Council's opinion and Commission's opinion, the complainant criticises the delay with which the problem was dealt with, and requests that a date for the completion of the work be set.

The complainant also argues that that the identification, within the institutions, of a clear chain of responsibility for matters related to accessibility should be essential in order to avoid similar instances of maladministration from occurring in the future. He further requests that all EU institutions should ensure that accessibility considerations are systematically integrated into all decision-making and procurement procedures involving European premises.

2.5 The Ombudsman notes that, on 21 December 2006, the Commission informed him of the letter it had addressed to the complainant in which it explained that the work undertaken to ensure the accessibility of its information centre at Rond-Point Schuman for wheelchair users or other people with reduced mobility had been completed. The Ombudsman also notes that the complainant acknowledges that the problem has now been solved and that , as a result, entry to the information centre is now possible for everyone.

The Ombudsman welcomes the actions taken by both the Council and the Commission to put an end to the problem. In view of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the Council and the Commission appear to have taken adequate steps to settle the complaints and have thereby satisfied the complainant.

2.6 The Ombudsman is mindful of the fact that, in his reply to the Commission's communication of 21 December 2006, the complainant expressed concern over the length of time it had taken to solve the problem. The Ombudsman also notes that the complainant has argued that the identification, within the institutions, of a clear chain of responsibility for matters related to accessibility should be essential, with an eye to avoiding similar instances of maladministration from occurring in the future and that he requests that all EU institutions should ensure that accessibility considerations are systematically integrated into all decision-making and procurement procedures involving European premises.

The Ombudsman recalls that in the framework of his on-going own-initiative inquiry OI/3/2003, he is currently reviewing the more general issue of the Commission's integration of persons with disabilities, in particular the measures implemented by the institution to ensure that persons with disabilities are not discriminated against in their relations with the institution. The Ombudsman considers that accessibility to the Commission's premises by disabled people should constitute a particular element of that inquiry. He therefore intends to assess whether any positive development has taken place in this area and, if necessary, to make the appropriate recommendations in the context of his own-initiative inquiry.

Even though the own-initiative inquiry only concerns the Commission, the Ombudsman trusts that his findings in that case shall be carefully studied also by all other EU institutions and bodies with a view to considering whether it would be appropriate for them to carry out the suggested changes. The complainant may wish to consider addressing himself to the Ombudsman if he were to believe that other Community institutions or bodies are not doing enough to make their premises accessible to wheelchair users or to other people with reduced mobility.

3 Conclusion

It appears from the available information that the Council and the Commission have taken steps to settle the matter and have thereby satisfied the complainant. The Ombudsman therefore closes the cases against these two institutions.

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

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS