Introduction

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am very pleased to be here today in the Royal Anglo Belgian Club. I would like to thank the Belgian-Luxembourg Chamber of Commerce in Great Britain for this invitation. My special thanks go to Mr Vanhoonacker, the chairman of the Royal Anglo-Belgian Club and of the Belgian Luxembourg Chamber of Commerce, as well as to his colleagues who helped to organise this event.

I am here today to explain the nature and services of the European Ombudsman and what I can concretely do for businesses. This event forms part of my efforts all over the European Union, and beyond, to inform Chambers of Commerce about my work. At the EU-level, I am in close contact with Eurochambres and at the national level I am cooperating with the different national and regional Chambers of Commerce, whom I regard as uniquely situated to serve as multiplier mechanisms in helping raise awareness about my services among small, medium-sized and large enterprises.

Short history of the European Ombudsman

Let me start with a short account of the history of the institution of the ombudsman. It was the Scandinavians, the Swedish to be precise, who invented the ombudsman concept. This happened as far back as 1809. The founders' idea that an independent body should check the legality of public officials' actions was truly avant-garde. It should hardly come as a surprise, therefore, that the Scandinavian countries have also been among the most fervent promoters of transparency in Europe.

It was in the context of the EU enlargement to the Scandinavian countries, as well as in the discussions concerning a Citizens' Europe, that the idea of creating a European Ombudsman was brought forward. The Maastricht Treaty established the European Ombudsman in 1993 to enhance relations between citizens, companies and associations and the EU level of governance.

The European Ombudsman is elected by the European Parliament. The first Ombudsman, Mr Jacob Söderman, the former national ombudsman of Finland, was elected by Parliament in 1995.

I was elected European Ombudsman in 2003 and re-elected in 2005 for a full five-year mandate. I recently celebrated my fifth year in office.

The role of the European Ombudsman

For those of you who may not be familiar with my function, let me give you a short description. I investigate complaints about maladministration in the European institutions and bodies, such as the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council. Maladministration encompasses all kinds of poor or failed administration, from late payment for EU projects or problems with tender procedures to legal errors or the refusal to give access to a document.

In 2007, I received 3,211 complaints from citizens, companies, associations, interest groups, NGOs and other organisations. Later in my talk, I will provide you with very "fresh" statistics and background material regarding last year which are based on the presentation of my Annual Report 2007 to the public, made just three weeks ago.

For the moment, I wish to point out that last year, we launched an information campaign for specific target groups, including companies and associations. The results have been most encouraging - an increasing number of such organisations are beginning to use my services. Unlike individual citizens, who very often come to me for the "wrong" reasons, more than half of the complaints from businesses or associations fall within my mandate.

The reason for this is simple: Thousands of companies and associations are involved in EU projects and programmes. They are therefore much more likely to be in direct contact with the EU administration, for example, following calls for tender or contracts signed with the institutions and bodies. And some of them do, in fact, encounter problems with the EU institutions.

Companies and associations are also frequently in direct contact with EU institutions in the context of their lobbying activities, participation in consultation procedures and attempts to gain access to important information concerning their area of activity. When they are unhappy with how they have been treated by the services of the institutions, they can turn to me.

In the framework of our information campaign I am working hard to raise awareness among these target groups concerning their right to complain. I already mentioned my cooperation with Eurochambres at the European level. But during the last two years, I travelled to many Member States to inform national and regional Chambers of Commerce, Bar Associations and other stakeholders about my services.

Strictly speaking only citizens of the European Union or any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in an EU Member State can lodge a complaint with the Ombudsman.

I know, however, that some of you work for non-EU Chambers of Commerce. Therefore, I do not only want to talk about EU businesses but also about the possibilities for non-EU businesses to turn to the Ombudsman. In 2007, I received a substantial number of complaints, 200 to be precise, from non-EU citizens, businesses or associations. And some of these led to important investigations which I launched by making use of the power of own initiative provided for in my statute.

More generally, experience shows that businesses and associations will only make use of their right to complain if they think that it will make a difference. I believe that it does. Following our inquiries, the EU institutions have settled bills, paid interest, released documents, remedied injustices, reviewed processes, and improved procedures for the benefit of all parties.

Types of maladministration alleged

A growing number of complaints that I investigate, 28% in 2007, concern lack of transparency, such as refusal of access to documents or information. Many businesses turn to me when EU institutions refuse public access to audit reports, or to documents concerning the legislative procedures in Brussels or competition law cases.

To give you an example: I received a complaint from a company alleging that the European Investment Bank had refused to provide it access to an audit report concerning an EU-funded project in Africa in which the company had participated. After my intervention, the EIB gave partial public access to the audit report. In addition, it agreed to give the relevant company private access to sections of the report that specifically concerned the group to which the company belonged.

Other complaints I receive concern disputes about EU contracts, both as regards the process of award and subsequent performance and payment. I also deal with grievances related to recruitment, with allegations that fundamental rights have been infringed, and with complaints against the Commission in its role as Guardian of the Treaty.

I would like to give you some examples of complaints from SMEs, big companies, as well as associations, to show you the range of topics we are covering in our investigations:

After my intervention, the European Commission reimbursed an outstanding sum of EUR 88 000 to a French consulting firm. The company claimed that the institution had not repaid the entire eligible costs arising from its participation in an Information Society Technologies programme with China. The Commission argued that the complainant had made a mistake in its cost statements. Eventually, however, it agreed to pay the outstanding sum.

I also opened an inquiry into a complaint by the mobile phone company O2 about the Commission's investigations concerning roaming services. According to O2, the Commission failed to grant it proper rights of defence in the framework of the proceedings against it. Other European mobile phone operators followed with similar complaints. The investigations are still ongoing.

Last year, I called on the Commission to correct inaccurate and misleading information contained in leaflets, posters and a video presentation concerning air passenger rights. This followed a complaint from two European airline associations which criticised the information provided by the Commission on the rights of travellers to compensation and assistance, in the event of denied boarding, cancellation of flights or long delays. Following my intervention, the Commission corrected the relevant information material.

As I mentioned before, I also receive complaints from non-EU businesses which are involved in EU projects in third countries. To give you an example: A company in Botswana was asked by the Commission Delegation in that country to deliver images of the country to be included in a country profile appearing in a specialized magazine. The images appeared in the magazine but the company did not receive payment. After my intervention, the Commission apologized for the delay and paid the outstanding sum plus interest.

All these examples illustrate the type of services I can provide to SMEs, larger companies and associations whose complaints are within my mandate.

The European Network of Ombudsmen

It is important to point out that the European Ombudsman is not an appeals body against decisions taken by national courts or ombudsmen.

It is equally important to point out that the European Ombudsman cannot deal with complaints about national, regional or local administrations, even when the complaints concern European Community matters. To give you some examples: We receive a lot of complaints about cross-border problems concerning pension payments, social or health services. Such complaints should normally be addressed to the national, regional or local ombudsman or petitions committee.

In order to deal with these problems and to ensure that citizens' complaints about EU law are dealt with promptly and effectively, we established the European Network of Ombudsmen. Within this Network, I co-operate very closely with my counterparts at the national, regional and local levels. We exchange best practices, arrange regular meetings and make sure that complaints are dealt with at the appropriate level. In 2007, I advised 816 complainants to turn to a national or regional ombudsman and I transferred 51 complaints directly to the competent ombudsman.

The European Network of Ombudsmen now comprises almost 90 offices in 31 countries, covering the national and regional levels within the European Union, as well as the national level in the applicant countries for EU membership plus Norway and Iceland.

The Ombudsman - complementary to the courts

The decisions of the European Ombudsman are not legally binding. In view of that, some of you might ask yourselves if it wouldn't make more sense to go straight to court.

In some cases, turning to the Ombudsman can provide a more effective solution than going to court. To be sure, the right to go to court is fundamental and, in some cases (for example, where there are complex issues of fact on which witnesses should be cross-examined, or if a legally binding decision is essential) going to court is the more appropriate remedy.

However, there are several advantages to the Ombudsman's services. To begin with, there is no cost to the complainant. This is very important for example for SMEs which often do not have the means to go through lengthy court cases.

Secondly, we have, since the Ombudsman's office was created in 1995, shown ourselves to be quicker than the courts. Some cases can be resolved within weeks, for example when a simple telephone call to the institution concerned suffices to settle the matter. But, in general, investigations take longer, particularly in more complex cases, like the O2 complaint I mentioned before. We nevertheless aim to close all cases within one year.

Thirdly, we can be more flexible than the courts. To give you an example: The complainant does not have to be personally affected by maladministration to be able to submit a complaint. In practice, this means that a Chamber of Commerce could lodge a complaint on behalf of one or more companies affected by maladministration.

Fourthly, whenever I find maladministration in the EU institutions, I try, if possible, to achieve a friendly solution. This gives me the opportunity to ensure a win-win outcome, satisfying both the complainant and the institution involved.

As I have already mentioned, I have the power to start inquiries on my own initiative, for example, if I wish to follow up on a complaint from a company that does not have a registered office in the European Union.

I also use this power to start an investigation if I think there is evidence of systemic maladministration in the EU institutions and bodies. Let me give you one example:

A few years ago, we started an own-initiative inquiry into late payment by the European Commission. We closed the case when the Commission promised to improve its payments system.

However, last December we launched a second investigation into the subject of the timeliness of payments made by the European Commission. This followed new complaints from individuals, companies and organisations involved in EU-funded projects and contracts. I asked the Commission to provide me with information on what has been done to avoid late payment, with statistical data on late payment cases, as well as with clarification concerning its policy on paying interest.

In that context, I stressed that small and medium-sized enterprises and other organisations rely heavily on receiving timely payments for their work on EU projects. I called on the Commission to do its best to avoid delays which often cause considerable problems for complainants with limited financial resources. The Commission has, in the meantime, sent us its opinion concerning this investigation and my legal department is currently analysing its content.

The power of persuasion

As I have already said, one of the fundamental differences distinguishing ombudsmen from courts is the fact that my decisions are not legally binding. Now, you might ask yourself: What good is an institution that cannot issue legally binding decisions? Well, I would argue that a friendly solution can in fact be much more satisfying and constructive for complainants, as well as for the EU institution concerned, than a court judgement.

To give you an example: The Commission granted compensation of EUR 21 000, on a purely ex gratia basis, to a small company after the Ombudsman found that it had given the company insufficient time to prepare a proposal in the framework of a research and development contract. This ultimately led to the proposal being deemed ineligible due to an error it contained. In its response, the Commission stressed that it was anxious not to harm small and medium sized enterprises.

To put the matter another way, my power lies in the strength of my arguments and in my ability to persuade the institutions about the correctness of my views whenever I find maladministration. Let me also point out that, in spite of my decisions not being legally binding, the rate of compliance is high.

If an EU institution fails to respond satisfactorily to one of my recommendations, I can still have recourse to my ultimate weapon; that is, a special report to the European Parliament. In 2007, I issued one special report in which I criticised the Commission for not dealing with a complaint concerning the European working time directive. More than six years ago, a German doctor asked the Commission to open proceedings against Germany, alleging that it was infringing the working time directive. Despite pressure from my office, the Commission has refrained from taking action on the complaint as such, arguing that its proposals for amending the directive are before the Community legislator. But I considered this inaction and this refusal to apply an existing law to be maladministration.

Complaint statistics

Since starting work in 1995, the Ombudsman has dealt with around 30,000 complaints. Much progress has been made in that time to render the EU administration more open, accountable and service-minded.

As I mentioned in the beginning of my presentation, in 2007 I received a total of 3,211 complaints from citizens, companies, associations, NGOs, regional offices and others. This represents a decrease in comparison to 2006, when I received 3,830 complaints. However, the reduction in the total number of complaints consists exclusively of a reduction in complaints that are outside my mandate and is, therefore, a positive development.

Furthermore, we received a higher number of admissible complaints in both absolute and relative terms. As a result, 17% more inquiries were opened in 2007 in comparison to the previous year. At the same time, my office closed a record number of inquiries in 2007, namely, 348 inquiries. This represents a 40% increase compared to 2006.

I consider this a very positive development which shows that our efforts to inform businesses, associations, NGOs, regional authorities and other target groups about our services are beginning to bear fruit.

We manage to help around 70% of complainants, by opening an inquiry into the case, transferring the complaint to a competent body, or advising the complainant where to turn.

The majority of complaints within my mandate - more than two thirds - are against the European Commission. This does not mean that the Commission is the institution with the worst administration. It simply reflects the fact that the Commission is the EU institution that most citizens, companies or associations deal with. The European Personnel Selection Office, the European Parliament, the Anti-Fraud-Office, OLAF, and the Council were next in line in 2007.

Let me also say that I am concerned about the growing number of critical remarks I had to make last year to the EU institutions. In 2006, we noted a record number of critical remarks, namely, 41, but in 2007 the number grew even further to 55.

But there is also good news. In 2007, 129 cases - 35% of the total - were settled by the EU administration following a complaint to the Ombudsman. This represents twice the number of cases settled during the previous year.

Country statistics

Regarding the origin of complaints, I can tell you that Germany, with more than 500 complaints in 2007, overtook Spain as the source of the greatest number of complaints. This is mainly due to our extensive information efforts in 2007 to explain our services to the German public. It only makes sense that Germany, being the biggest Member State, should also have the highest number of complaints.

Germany was followed by Spain, France and Poland. But if you look at the size of the population, the countries with the highest rate of complaints are Luxembourg, Malta and Cyprus. Belgium is fifth on the list and Portugal is slightly above the EU average in terms of its complaint rate.

Citizens, companies and associations in the United Kingdom complain least, if you take into account the size of the UK population. One the one hand, this fits into the situation we have with many of the big Member States, namely, lower relative complaint rates stemming from the fact that it is always more difficult to reach out to larger populations. On the other hand, the United Kingdom has an excellent network of regional and national ombudsmen. Citizens and companies are thus generally well informed about the ombudsman concept and I do not see the reason why they should not also take advantage of the European Ombudsman. Maybe you have other explanations for the low complaint rate in the UK. In any case, we obviously still have a lot to do to inform the British public about our services.

Both, Luxembourg and Belgium have a complaint rate far above the EU average. This is partly due to the fact that many EU institutions have long been established in both countries. People are generally better informed about their work and also about my services than in other countries. In addition to that, we also receive an important number of complaints from EU officials who have problems with their own administration.

Promoting good administration

The overview of cases I have provided you with underlines the Ombudsman's reactive function. But it is important to point out that the Ombudsman is also proactive and constitutes a resource for the institutions to help them improve their performance.

I devote considerable energy and attention to reaching out to the EU institutions and bodies with a view to promoting good administration. I regularly meet with Commissioners, Commission officials and representatives of the other EU institutions in order to explain that the Ombudsman does not constitute and should not be conceived of as a threat but rather as a useful tool to help find out what may be going wrong in the administration.

To help explain what good administration should mean in practice, we developed the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, which was approved by the European Parliament in 2001. The Code explains what the public has the right to expect from the European administration and constitutes a useful guide for civil servants.

Conclusion

The result of the Ombudsman's work should be an enhanced service to anyone who has reason to contact the EU institutions and bodies. I am always keen to stress that my main task is to promote a service culture in the European institutions. A result-oriented, service-minded and open European administration is key to improving relations between companies and associations and the EU institutions.

Some of you might already be aware of the kind of problems I mentioned with the EU institutions. And some of you may be involved in these kinds of cases in the future. I would therefore like to encourage you to spread the word and to turn to me whenever problems arise with the EU administration. We are here to help. Do make use of us.

Thank you very much for your attention, I am now happy to answer any questions that you may have.