Introduction

Chair, Honourable Members, I wish to thank you for this opportunity to address you on the subject of my Annual Report for the year 2012.

The Report includes key figures, statistics and background material concerning the complaints I received in 2012 from citizens, companies, NGOs, associations and others.

The full Report, in English, and an Overview, in all official languages, are available here today. The full Report will, as usual, be available in all official languages as from July.

I formally submitted the Report to President Schulz on 21 May.

Let me first of all say that I am grateful for Parliament's and this Committee's continued support for the work of the European Ombudsman - who has a very specific mandate: the investigation of complaints about maladministration in the European institutions and bodies.

The Ombudsman's work is thus complementary to that of this Committee, although, to be sure, our respective roles are distinct.

Maladministration encompasses all kinds of poor or improper administrative behaviour, from late payment for EU projects to unjustified refusal to give out a document, and from publishing inaccurate information to failure to reply to a letter.

Unlike court rulings, an ombudsman's decisions are not legally binding. However, he uses his power of persuasion to achieve friendly solutions, with which both sides, that is, the complainants and the European bodies concerned, can be satisfied. The Ombudsman's services can thus be more flexible and, more often than not, faster than the Courts. Furthermore - a very important point for many complainants - the ombudsman's services are free of charge.

After the Ombudsman's intervention, institutions and bodies have very often settled bills, paid interest, released documents, remedied injustices and put an end to discrimination. The Ombudsman’s inquiries also promote the public interest and deal with important matters of principle - such as potential conflicts of interest and other ethical issues.

Annual Report 2012 - Key statistics

Let me now turn to the key statistics of the Annual Report. During 2012, I received a total of 2 442 complaints from citizens, companies, NGOs, associations, and others. 

Turning briefly to the geographical origin of complaints, I can tell you that, as usual, Spain and Germany were the source of the greatest absolute number of complaints. They were followed by Poland and Belgium. But relative to the size of their population, most complaints once again came from smaller member states, such as Luxembourg, Cyprus, Malta, and Slovenia. Members will find details about the complaints per country in the Annual Report and in the map and figures contained in the Overview.

As you know, I systematically endeavour to help every complainant who turns to the Ombudsman, even in cases when the complaint is not within my mandate.

In January of 2009, I launched an interactive guide on my website which is accessible in all official languages. This guide aims to direct complainants to the body best placed to help them, be it my own services, this Committee, the services of national or regional ombudsmen in the Member States or existing problem-solving mechanisms established by the European Commission, such as the Your Europe portal or the SOLVIT network for cross border problems.

We should not underestimate how important and empowering the interactive guide is for citizens. Through it, they can identify the most appropriate complaint-handling body at the outset and spare themselves the frustration and delay that may occur if they complain to the wrong body..

In 2012, more than 19 000 people received advice through the guide.

If we add the number of requests for information replied to, and complaints that were dealt with, we can say that over 22 000 citizens were directly helped by the Ombudsman in 2012.

The number of inquiries opened in 2012, that is, 465, represents an increase of 18% compared to the previous year. Following a similar increase of 18% in 2011, the trend confirms that increasingly more of the people turning to the European Ombudsman are doing so for the right reasons.

This trend is confirmed by the fact that the number of complaints falling outside the European Ombudsman's mandate in 2012 was, at 1 720, the lowest in ten years. In large part, I attribute this success to the interactive guide that I mentioned earlier.

In total, 390 inquiries were closed in 2012. In 89 cases, the institution concerned settled the matter, agreed to a friendly solution, or accepted a draft recommendation. Most of the other cases were closed with a finding either of no maladministration, or that no further inquiries were needed. In 56 cases, I concluded that there had been maladministration. The institutions accepted a draft recommendation, either in part or in full, in 9 of these, while 47 cases were closed with critical remarks. In 30 cases, I made "further remarks" to help improve future performance.

Special Report

Honourable members, as you will recall, in May of last year I presented to Parliament a Special Report concerning (a) the Commission's failure to address a conflict of interest in the handling of the expansion of Vienna Airport, (b) the lack of an Environmental Impact Assessment relating to that expansion, as well as (c) the absence of review procedures available to those who complained about the construction project and the absence of an EIA.

The extremely small number of special reports that the European Ombudsman has historically presented to Parliament - 18 in 17 and a half years - constitutes tangible evidence of the co-operative approach adopted by the EU Institutions in the overwhelming majority of cases.

That co-operation, however, is premised on the knowledge that the Ombudsman disposes of the power to make a special report to Parliament. Especially when a draft recommendation is made, the knowledge that the next step could be a special report often helps to persuade the Institution or body concerned to alter its position.

To be sure, special reports should not be presented too frequently, but only in relation to important matters, on which Parliament could help persuade the institution or body concerned to modify its position.

In dealing with the Ombudsman’s special reports, the European Parliament is, as a political body, sovereign as regards both its procedures and the substance of its approach and actions.

I was therefore very gratified to see that both the rapporteur, Ms Auken, and this Committee voting unanimously, supported the Ombudsman's position and analysis in your own report on the subject of Vienna Airport.

Follow-up and compliance

Honourable Members, in 2012 we were able, for the first time, to obtain a concrete answer to the question of how effective the European Ombudsman is in eliciting improvements in the performance of the institutions.

In two publications produced last year - the follow-up study to critical and further remarks and a new compliance report - we found that, in 82% of cases, the EU institutions comply with the Ombudsman's suggestions.

In other words, the institutions provided 98 positive replies either in 2011 or during 2012 to the 120 remarks and recommendations which I made in the context of inquiries closed during 2011.

When we distributed these results to the institutions, the president of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy wrote to state that "...this work is another essential element in reassuring public opinion that our Union has inbuilt checks and balances. Even for the bulk of citizens who have no need to have recourse to the Ombudsman, it is important for them to know that such safeguards exist and are actively pursued."

Star cases

Honourable members, once again, I have this year included in the Annual Report a section on "star cases" in order to highlight illustrative examples of exemplary administrative practice by institutions and bodies revealed through my inquiries and, in addition, to emphasise that a central function of the Ombudsman institution is to strengthen and deepen a culture of service in the EU institutions and bodies by promoting and supporting best practice.

Ten such "star cases" are highlighted in the Annual Report. They are outlined in Section 1.5 of the Report.

The institutions' willingness to cooperate with the Ombudsman to achieve a satisfactory resolution to complaints constitutes an important expression of their commitment to this culture of service. I also note that, in some of the cases, the constructive engagement of the complainants themselves also proved crucial to obtaining a win-win outcome.

Public Service Principles

Ensuring the highest standards of behaviour in the institutions, as set out in the Ombudsman's mission statement, is a never-ending process. During 2012, in order to further assist civil servants with the plethora of codes and regulations governing their activities, and to provide better guidance for their conduct, we published a set of public service principles in all official languages.

The five principles are: (a) commitment to the European Union and its citizens, (b) integrity, (c) objectivity, (d) respect for others, and (e) transparency.

The principles take account of best practice in the Member States and were formulated following consultation with the European Network of Ombudsmen and with the public. Following the publication of these principles, I drew up guidelines on ethics and good conduct for the staff of my own Office.

Reflections on a decade in office

Chair, honourable members, since I will retire in October this year, I wish to also use this opportunity to provide you with a short overview of what I think have been the notable achievements and important experiences over the decade I have been European Ombudsman.

In basic numbers: Over the last decade, my institution dealt with more than 30 000 complaints and opened almost 3 500 investigations into alleged maladministration by the EU institutions.

During the same period, the EU administration has become a lot more transparent, citizen-friendly, and service-minded. The independent and impartial work of the Ombudsman has hopefully contributed to this notable progress in the administrative culture of the EU civil service.

As I never tire of saying, however, there is always room for improvement, especially when it comes to enhancing the capacity of the EU institutions and bodies to be proactive in promoting a culture of service towards citizens.

During the past ten years, the Ombudsman has participated in multiple ways in decision-making and opinion-forming at the European level and in strengthening cooperation with the European Network of Ombudsmen. Important parts of my work have involved adapting the Ombudsman's office to take account of EU enlargement, the reform of the Ombudsman's Statute, providing advice towards establishing the Ombudsman institution in Turkey, agreeing memoranda of understanding with the European Data Protection Supervisor and the European Investment Bank, enhancing the Ombudsman’s role in relation to the protection of human and fundamental rights, strengthening the European Network of Ombudsmen, and, above all, providing Parliament with information and recommendations in a number of fields.

If I could highlight three areas in which the Ombudsman achieved tangible results in improving the quality of the EU administration, I would pick the following: transparency, citizens' rights, and ethical standards.

Transparency

Transparency-related complaints have always been at the top of the complaints list. They are, however, decreasing from the peak year of 2008, in which 36% of complainants alleged lack of transparency, to 21.5% in 2012. This is a clear sign that the EU institutions have done a lot to become more transparent. To give but one example: Several Ombudsman recommendations led the European Medicines Agency in London to overhaul its transparency policy concerning access to medical data, such as adverse reaction reports and clinical trials. More transparency in the field of public health is key for European citizens.

Citizens' rights

Since the Lisbon Treaty entered into force in 2009 and the Charter of Fundamental Rights became legally binding, the Ombudsman has received an increasing number of complaints in the area of citizens' rights. They concern, for example, the European Citizens' Initiative, the institutions' obligation to conduct an open and regular dialogue with civil society, and other ways of increased citizens' participation, including public consultations.

On the basis of a complaint, I called on the Commission to publish its public consultations in all EU languages, as they are key to citizens' participation in the EU. Regrettably, the Commission has so far refused to follow this recommendation.

Ethical standards

In recent years, I have received an increasing number of "ethics" related complaints, concerning, among others, conflicts of interest, "revolving doors" cases, and ethical committees.

In one case, I called on the European Food Safety Authority to strengthen its procedures to avoid the risk of conflicts of interest in "revolving doors" cases. In another, I concluded that Mario Draghi's membership of the Group of 30 does not undermine the independence of the European Central Bank. And I recently opened two new inquiries that concern the handling of ethical issues in the European Commission. These cases are currently ongoing.

During my time in office, I have actively promoted the highest ethical standards in the EU administration, for example, through the publication of public service principles for EU staff which I just mentioned and which have received very positive reactions from the EU institutions.

Over the past ten years, the factual and legal issues raised in cases I receive have become increasingly complex. At the same time, the number of inquiries opened per year has increased from 253 cases ten years ago to 465 in 2012. In other words, our workload has expanded as regards both quantity and quality.

Furthermore, in order to serve the citizens of the 12 new countries that joined the European Union over the last decade we now deal with complaints in 23 - soon to be 24 - languages, as compared to less than half that number a decade ago.

Mercifully, our resources have increased commensurately. The institution has doubled in size from 31 posts in 2003 to 66 posts in 2012. This growth in staff numbers led, in turn, to the need for a long-term process of re-structuring of the office. I am happy to report that we have almost completed the final phase of the process and look to the future with renewed confidence in our capacity to help citizens and institutions alike.

Thanks

Few of these achievements would have been possible without the support of the staff of the European Ombudsman. It is, indeed, their excellence and commitment that provide the motor driving forward proper complaint-handling, outreach to citizens, and good relations with the institutions.

I choose my words very deliberately, as in September 2012, EFQM, the European Foundation for Quality Management, awarded the European Ombudsman its "Committed to Excellence" Certificate. Naturally, as would be expected of high-quality and highly-motivated people, the staff are aiming for even higher standards. I wish them well in their endeavour.

It is equally important to acknowledge that few of these achievements would have been possible without the proper cooperation of EU institutions. When there have been problems, I have always been able to depend upon open-minded and proactive collaboration with the leadership and staff of the EU institutions.

With respect to the Commission, which historically covers roughly two-thirds of all complaints reaching my office, I wish here to pay particular praise to the support for the Ombudsman's work of successive Commissioners for Administration, Inter-institutional Relations, and Fundamental Rights. A more recent source of satisfaction worth noting here are the Agencies of the EU, whose management teams have, in their overwhelming majority, cooperated fully with me in promoting the principles of a culture of service in their relations with citizens and the public.

Last but certainly not least, few of these achievements would have been possible without the support of the European Parliament in general, and of you, the Committee on Petitions, the Ombudsman's privileged interlocutor, in particular.

The Parliament has been very supportive in providing the Ombudsman with the budgetary and human resources needed for me to do my work effectively, with the physical resources necessary through our cooperation agreement, and with the political support necessary to achieve progress in good administration and the defence of citizen's rights. This has been a collaborative effort which has achieved spectacularly good results and I wish to thank all Members, but in particular the Chair of the Committee, her predecessors, and all those who have served as Rapporteurs for my Reports to you.

Reflections on the future

I will conclude with some reflections on the future. Parliament is currently in the process of electing my successor. Whoever is successful will be faced with a number of challenges for the future.

One such challenge is the austerity situation which both the citizens whom we serve and the institutions we are tasked to help, have to face, in all likelihood for quite some time.

Another will be to cope with, and adjust to, technological change; environmental, economic and financial problems; increasing but also ageing population; and many others, including migration.

These challenges are leaving their deep imprint on the evolving relationship between the EU and its citizens. In turn, the expectations which citizens hold of the EU that serves them are a function of two central parameters:  the problems they face and the tools they have at their disposal in order to make their demands known.

The challenge for the European Ombudsman is to be both responsive to the changing needs and demands of citizens, and at the same time, aware of the pressures and constraints that the institutions face.

Failure to meet citizens’ expectations may lead to loss of credibility and to seeking solutions elsewhere. Equally, failure to recognize the limited resources which institutions have to respond to such expectations may lead to a breakdown in the relationship between the Ombudsman and the institutions. Such a potential development will also be detrimental to citizens.

How should the future Ombudsman face these challenges? Meaningfully, creatively and proactively engaging in a regular and structured dialogue with the institutions, for which I serve as an external mechanism of control, constitutes a central element of my deeply held view that the Ombudsman should not be regarded as an institutional expression of a culture of blame, which tends to breed a defensive mentality in the institutions and staff. Rather, my objective has been proactively to promote a culture of service to citizens and of active respect for their rights.

Promoting an administrative culture of service to citizens requires more of a moral than a budgetary investment on the part of Parliament and the Ombudsman. It asks of the Ombudsman to be proactive, to be imaginative and to be creative in thinking of ways through which she or he can contribute to bringing about changes in the mindset of the institutions. Such ways include, but are certainly not limited to, systematic networking and continuous engagement with the public; persuading administrations that acting proactively can be a winning - and low-cost - solution to enhancing citizens’ trust.

Above all, however, promoting an administrative culture of service to citizens demands of the Ombudsman institution the intellectual commitment and administrative capacity to adopt citizen-focused strategies geared to the maintenance and observance of the highest ethical standards. Such attributes constitute the necessary foundation on which to build the moral and political capital that is needed in order to live up to the added responsibilities and heavy expectations associated with the Ombudsman being viewed as an important institutional counter-weight to executive power, endowed with moral authority capable of contributing substantively to the deepening of the rule of law and to the enhancement of the quality of democracy within the European Union.

To achieve these goals, the future European Ombudsman will need to possess - and be able to publicly demonstrate such possession to the satisfaction of citizens - personal independence, impartiality and integrity, as explicitly provided for by Parliament when adopting its Decision concerning the Ombudsman almost 20 years ago.

I wish whoever will be my successor well, and I thank you for your attention and, again, for your support throughout the past ten years.