Strasbourg, 9 March 2005

Dear Mrs Z.,

On 31 August 2004, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the European Parliament's homepage.

On 13 September 2004, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Parliament. The European Parliament sent its opinion on 13 December 2004 and I forwarded it to you on 21 December 2004 with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished, by 31 January 2005. No such observations were received from you by that date.

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

THE COMPLAINT

On 31 August 2004, the complainant, apparently an Austrian citizen, consulted the homepage of the European Parliament in order to find out how many members the latter had. When doing so, the complainant discovered that the homepage had not been updated since 30 April 2004 and still claimed that the EU had 15 Member States.

The complainant, who considered this to be rather embarrassing for the institution, tried to draw Parliament's attention to this fact by sending an e-mail message. According to the complainant, however, she found that it was not easy to do so. The complainant noted that when consulting Parliament's website she found a long list of frequently asked questions and forms how to complain (which she did not want to do). According to the complainant, there was however no easy way to provide feedback to Parliament. She further submitted that if such a possibility should exist, Parliament's homepage was badly set out and not customer-friendly.

The complainant thus effectively alleged that Parliament's homepage was out of date and not customer-friendly enough.

The complainant claimed that the Ombudsman should see to it that Parliament's homepage was updated and that an easier way to provide feedback to Parliament should be created.

THE INQUIRY

The European Parliament's opinion

In its opinion, Parliament made the following comments:

Parliament made a huge amount of information available through the internet, publishing very large numbers of documents in various languages and formats. Events such as the accession of new Member States to the EU, the European elections of June 2004 and the establishment of a new Parliament had had a major impact on the site in recent months. These successive changes had each in turn required a revision of a large volume of information made available to the public. Ideally, this would be done in real time. In practice, the process of updating content needed to take into account on the one hand scheduling issues and on the other long lead-in times owing to the large number of people involved, be they authors, linguists or editors. Thus, for instance, the item referred to by the complainant, which, as a note had clearly mentioned, had reflected the situation as at 30 April 2004, had been revised and was currently being checked by the department concerned.

Nevertheless, Parliament was aware of these problems and at the end of 2003 it had set about restructuring its website. The new version should see the light of day in the first quarter of 2005 and should constitute a positive response to the concerns aired by the complainant. The aim was to offer a continually changing flow of information (just-in-time) appropriate for a wide range of target audiences. In addition to the general overhaul of the content of its main pages, the new website would aim to provide an atttractive, dynamic homepage making use of multimedia, subject to daily updates and content suitable for a broad public. This innovative approach required new skills and suitable production technologies. This was both an important and a necessary undertaking and one in which Parliament was investing the requisite human and budgetary resources. It was hoped that this substantial revision of Parliament's website would serve to assuage the concerns raised by the complainant and other internet users.

The complainant's observations

No observations were received from the complainant by the date set for this purpose.

THE DECISION

1 Alleged failure to provide updated and accessible homepage

1.1 On 31 August 2004, the complainant, apparently an Austrian citizen, consulted the homepage of the European Parliament in order to find out how many members the latter had. When doing so, the complainant discovered that the homepage had not been updated since 30 April 2004 and still claimed that the EU had 15 Member States. According to the complainant, it proved difficult to draw Parliament's attention to this fact by sending an e-mail message. The complainant thus effectively alleged that Parliament's homepage was out of date and not customer-friendly enough. She claimed that the Ombudsman should see to it that Parliament's homepage was updated and that an easier way to provide feedback to Parliament should be created.

1.2 In its opinion, Parliament submitted that events such as the accession of new Member States to the EU, the European elections of June 2004 and the establishment of a new Parliament had had a major impact on the site in recent months. According to Parliament, these successive changes had each in turn required a revision of a large volume of information made available to the public and that this process had taken time. Parliament added, however, that the item referred to by the complainant had been revised in the meantime. It stressed that it was aware of these problems and at the end of 2003 it had set about restructuring its website. According to Parliament, the new version should see the light of day in the first quarter of 2005 and should constitute a positive response to the concerns aired by the complainant. The aim was to offer a continually changing flow of information (just-in-time) appropriate for a wide range of target audiences. In addition to the general overhaul of the content of its main pages, the new website would aim to provide an attractive, dynamic homepage making use of multimedia, subject to daily updates and content suitable for a broad public. Parliament expressed the hope that this substantial revision of Parliament's website would serve to assuage the concerns raised by the complainant and other internet users.

1.3 The Ombudsman notes that Parliament has explained that measures are being taken to improve its website and to make it more attractive to users. He further notes that the information on its members that is now available on Parliament's website reflects the fact that the EU has grown to 25 Member States. In its opinion, Parliament expressed the hope that the revision of its website it was carrying out would meet the concerns expressed by the complainant. The Ombudsman notes that the complainant, who has not made any observations, has thus not challenged this view.

2 Conclusion

In view of the above, the Ombudsman considers that there are no grounds for further inquiries in this case. He therefore closes the file. The President of the European Parliament will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS