Introduction

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to you about the role of the European Ombudsman and the relevance of my work for you as European affairs professionals.

I am particularly grateful to the President of SEAP, Ms Lyn Trytsman Gray, for inviting me to address you today. Thanks also are due to Ms Catherine Stewart, Vice-President of SEAP, who co-ordinated my last address to this organisation in 2005 and who is here today.

During my presentation today, I will talk about the work I do promoting transparency in the Union. I will talk about developments in the area of access to documents and about how I monitor the EU institutions to ensure that they live up to their promises on consultation. Finally, I shall speak about the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour and how the Code can help in achieving the goal of an open, accountable and service-minded EU administration.

I know that a lot of your discussions today are focused on the new register for interest representatives and the code of conduct for lobbyists. My keynote speech forms part of the session entitled "Ethics and Lobbying".

I should mention at the outset that, as Ombudsman, I deal with complaints against the EU institutions and bodies only, and that I have no power to investigate anyone else. My main focus is on ensuring that the EU administration respects the law, adheres to the principles of good administration, and ensures respect for fundamental rights.

An open, high quality and well-functioning EU administration is of particular importance to you as European affairs practitioners, since it enhances your capacity to carry out your work effectively. I hope that my presentation today will give you a good idea of how the Ombudsman's has been working to help ensure good administration in the EU institutions and bodies.

European Transparency Initiative

The biggest single issue that gives rise to Ombudsman inquiries is lack of transparency. Almost one third of all our inquiries concern failure to provide adequate information.

This underlines the importance of projects such as the Commission’s European Transparency Initiative. The stated aim of this Initiative is to make the European Union and its institutions more open and accountable.

Transparency and democratic accountability go hand in hand. The basic idea of transparency is that citizens should easily be able to obtain the information they need in order to call public authorities to account.

Transparency implies that public authorities should be proactive in publishing information, in ways that can be easily understood by the intended audience. In addition, transparency requires public authorities to react promptly and, as far as possible, positively to requests from members of the public for access to information and documents which have not yet been published.

One of the concerns driving the European Transparency Initiative is the need to combat corruption, and I am sure that this issue will form part of your discussions on "ethics in lobbying". I am convinced, and all experience shows, that greater transparency and openness in the public administration is negatively correlated with levels of corruption. An open and transparent public administration makes it more difficult to hide corrupt practices.

My contribution as European Ombudsman to combating corruption lies mainly in my work promoting greater openness and transparency in the EU administration, and seeking to attain greater accountability among the EU institutions and bodies.

Since the European Transparency Initiative was launched, I have followed its development closely. I have made clear that I believe that one of the most effective ways to increase trust in the Union and its administration is to improve transparency.

I was greatly encouraged, for example, by moves to make data on beneficiaries of EU funds more transparent. The idea that Member States should disclose information on who receives EU money is certainly a step in the right direction.

As Ombudsman, I have received complaints about lack of transparency in the field of beneficiaries of EU funds. My view is that it is in the general public interest to provide information on how EU taxpayers’ money is spent. Explaining openly what the EU and the Member States do in the name of the citizen makes the European Union more democratic and accessible.

It is for this reason that I welcomed the decision of the European Parliament to publish general information on MEPs' allowances on its website. While I believe that Parliament should have gone further, its acknowledgment that the public has the right to know how MEPs spend public money is an important step forward.

Serving as the guardian of transparency

Since the establishment of the institution, the European Ombudsman has striven for a more open and democratic European Union.

Many of the European Ombudsman's achievements in promoting transparency are linked to inquiries into allegations of refusal of access to documents and information. Complaints that my office has dealt with in this area have helped to make a real difference.

In terms of contesting decisions taken under the EU's public access to documents rules (namely, Regulation 1049/2001), the Regulation gives applicants a choice of remedy: they may challenge a refusal of access either in court proceedings, or by way of complaint to the Ombudsman.

In making their choice, citizens will no doubt take into account that there is no cost in going to the Ombudsman, no need to have a lawyer, and we are normally quicker in dealing with cases than a Court. On the other hand, I have no power to annul a decision refusing access.

Let me give you an example of a case that illustrates the application of these rules and the Ombudsman's efforts to promote further transparency:

I criticised the Commission for its refusal to grant access to documents it had submitted to the WTO on scientific concerns about the safety of genetically modified foods. This followed a complaint by the environmental NGO, Friends of the Earth, which had asked the Commission for the documents. The Commission eventually granted access to the documents.

In another transparency case, Corporate Europe Observatory lodged a complaint against the Commission concerning the blanking out of the names of industrial lobbyists in documents released by the Commission. I criticised this as a breach of European transparency rules. The same case was brought before the Court of First Instance, which agreed with the Ombudsman's conclusion.

More recent developments

When the Commission launched its Green Paper on the Transparency Initiative, I made the point that its planned revision of the regulation on access to documents would represent a key test for it to show how serious it really is in this respect.

On 30 April this year, as part of the Transparency Initiative, the Commission presented a proposal for a regulation which, if finally adopted, will revise and replace Regulation 1049/2001. On 2 June, I informed the European Parliament's Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee of my initial views as regards the proposal. While the proposal does have certain positive aspects, which I praised in my communication to Parliament, it also raises a number of important concerns. Let me discuss one specific point with you, since I think it is particularly relevant to your own activities.

Regulation 1049/2001 applies to all documents held by the relevant institution. The Commission’s proposal, however, introduces a new definition of "document". This proposed change implies that the rules on access would only cover those documents which have been “formally transmitted to one or more recipients” or otherwise registered. By denying that a document is a "document" until it has been formally transmitted or registered, the Commission would, for example, deny public access to documents which are circulated informally, such as documents informally passed on to favoured lobbyists. My fear is that this definition would end up reinforcing what many perceive to be an excessively secretive lobbying Brussels culture.

I have called on the European Parliament actively to use its role as co-legislator to ensure a successful reform of the current rules.

The adoption of Regulation 1049/2001 by the EU legislator has greatly facilitated the process of ensuring greater openness in the Union. It is important, that, for the future, this momentum towards greater and greater openness be maintained.

Facilitating participation in the policy-making process

Greater transparency in the EU, in the form of greater access to information and more open decision-making procedures, is key to facilitating participation in the EU policy-making process.

The Ombudsman has a part to play in helping to facilitate your participation in the policy-making process not only by encouraging greater transparency, but also by ensuring fair and effective consultation procedures.

The growth in the lobbying industry in Brussels reflects the fact that legislation adopted here seriously affects businesses, organisations and individuals throughout the Union and beyond. The Ombudsman cannot annul legislation, nor is it my role to investigate how the political process has operated. I can, however, look into whether the Commission, in particular, has followed procedural requirements, such as the duty to carry out consultations before proposing legislation. For example, I received a complaint from the worldwide GSM Association about the EU's regulation on roaming fees. The Association alleged that the Commission abused procedures in rushing through the legislation.

A key component of the Transparency Initiative, and the one that is the focus of your attention today, involves promoting more transparency in the activities of lobby groups at the EU level. Much of the programme for this conference focuses on how these moves affect your work on a daily basis.

A number of stakeholders have suggested a role for the Ombudsman in, for example, monitoring the recently introduced lobbying registration regime or in policing the code of conduct for lobbyists.

As I mentioned earlier, my mandate is limited to the EU public administration. Even there, I do not investigate individual wrongdoing, such as corruption, fraud or harassment. That is the role of the EU institutions themselves and of a specialised body, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). As Ombudsman, I can inquire into whether the institutions and OLAF have carried out their functions properly and whether their administrative systems are fit for purpose, including in the area of lobbying.

The Treaty does not, however, give the Ombudsman any power to investigate the activities of private bodies such as interest groups, or lobbyists. This is not part of the normal role of an Ombudsman.

The right to good administration

Although I cannot investigate lobbyists, I can, as I mentioned already, investigate the response of "the lobbied". The European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour is key in this regard. Adopted by the European Parliament in 2001, the Code sets out the principles that the staff of the institutions and bodies should respect in their dealings with the public.

The Code is addressed to the staff of the Community institutions and bodies. It contains all the principles of good administrative behaviour which they should respect in their administrative relations with the general public.

Indirectly, the Code is also addressed to you - not by imposing obligations on you, but by informing you of your rights vis-à-vis the EU institutions and bodies.

Let me briefly describe to you the contents of the Code:

To begin with, it contains the classic principles of administrative law, such as the principle of non discrimination, the right to be heard and to make statements and the indication of the possibilities of appeal.

It also contains provisions safeguarding greater transparency. These provisions state, for instance, that officials shall be service-minded and accessible in their relation with the public and that, when replying to correspondence, they shall try to be as helpful as possible and shall reply as completely and accurately as possible to questions which are asked. As regards requests for information, the Code requires officials to provide the public with the information that they request in a clear and understandable way.

I make extensive use of the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour in my work. The Code contributes to transparency by setting the standards for the institutions in their contacts with individuals, who in turn know what they should expect from the administration. And, correctly applied, the individual provisions of the Code make the administration much more accessible.

This Code contains principles of good administrative behaviour rather than ethical guidelines. However, applying the principles of good administration as such helps combat corruption and other inappropriate behaviour by public officials. Adhering to the principles of good administration involves establishing and following clear rules and principles about how civil servants should behave, including rules on how to handle conflicts and potential conflicts of interest. Such clear rules and principles help avoid confusion - both for the civil servants themselves and for people who are in contact with them - about what is legitimate and what is not. Confusion in this regard could have a potentially corrosive effect on personal standards of behaviour.

I have suggested that a natural complement to the European Transparency Initiative would be an initiative to ensure that all EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies are subject to a uniform set of principles, such as those set out in the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.

Rules on good administrative behaviour uniformly applicable to all EU bodies would not only help raise the notion of good administration to a higher level, but would also further promote transparency.

In this regard, I am particularly pleased to announce that all the EU agencies recently agreed to adopt the European Code and to consider how best to publicise it. This is good news for anyone who has reason to contact the agencies. There should now be a clear idea of what you have the right to expect.

Conclusion

To conclude, the Ombudsman was established to help improve relations between the Union institutions and the individuals, companies and associations they are in contact with.

By helping to resolve complaints that are brought to his attention, and by promoting best practice, the Ombudsman aims to ensure that your dealings with the EU institutions are as problem-free as possible.

In handling these cases, I consistently encourage the EU institutions not to adopt a defensive attitude to complaints. The procedures I use for inquiries give the Institution an opportunity to review and explain its position, and to put any errors right at the earliest possible stage, thereby raising the quality of its performance and its relationship with citizens.

To give you an example, I now include “star cases” in my Annual Report to draw attention to cases which should serve as a model for other institutions of how best to react to complaints.

By encouraging greater transparency, ensuring fair and effective consultation procedures and by promoting high standards of administration, the Ombudsman can ensure that the public administration is well placed to listen to, accommodate and involve you.

For your part, it is important that where the EU institutions fail to respect the relevant rules or where their practices fall short, you bring this to my attention through the complaints procedure. I am here to listen - and to act.

Thank you for your attention.