Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-26-Speech-4-009"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020926.1.4-009"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Madam President, on 1 September 1995 the Ombudsman's office started work. From then until 15 September 2002, the office received 10 535 complaints, of which 10 437 have been examined.
One of the most effective ways of communicating with such a vast audience is via the Internet. Around 2 500 websites contain an active link to the European Ombudsman's site and nearly 42 % of complaints are now submitted electronically, many of them using the on line complaint form.
The steady increase in the number of complaints is the best proof that the Ombudsman is better and better known. Almost 200 new complaints arrive each month, nearly a 300% increase compared with the first full year of cooperation in 1996.
The results of the Ombudsman's work for European citizens are also impressive. As well as obtaining redress in individual cases, we have achieved major improvements in the general functioning of the institution. Three of these call for special mention.
First we persuaded the institutions and some bodies, including the European Central Bank and Europol, to improve public access to their documents.
Second, an own-initiative inquiry led 17 institutions and bodies to adopt codes of good administration, based on a draft suggested by us. Following a special report, the European Parliament last year adopted a revised version of the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour. We have distributed this improved version of the Code widely throughout the institutions and to European citizens, whose right to good administration the Code embodies. As instructed by the European Parliament, we apply the Code in deciding whether or not there is maladministration.
The third achievement concerns the Charter of Fundamental Rights, proclaimed in Nice in December 2000. The Ombudsman proposed the idea that the Charter should include the right to good administration. This was included as Article 41 of the Charter.
The Ombudsman has also promoted the full and correct application of the Charter. The Union institutions solemnly proclaim the Charter to the citizens as embodying their fundamental rights. The Ombudsman therefore regards the institutions' failure to respect those rights in their own activities as maladministration.
Furthermore, the Ombudsman's proposals to the European Convention include the idea that the Charter should be legally binding wherever Community law applies.
Contrary to what the critical voices say, the institutions and bodies deserve credit for their mainly cooperative attitude to the Ombudsman. They have usually responded properly, fully and promptly to the Ombudsman's inquiries and have been willing to accept the Ombudsman's friendly solutions and draft recommendations.
Problems have arisen in only a small number of cases. In one case concerning access to information, the Commission rejected the Ombudsman's draft recommendation and has failed to act on a resolution of the European Parliament supporting the Ombudsman. I regret that this case seems to be part of a more general trend towards the misuse of data protection rules to halt or reverse the commitment to openness.
We carried out 1 385 full inquiries of which 19 were own-initiative inquiries. 1 149 of these cases involved the Commission, 137 cases involved the European Parliament's administration, 53 concerned the Council and 12 concerned the European Investment Bank.
Most of the institutions and bodies have also adopted a code of good administrative behaviour. I still cannot understand why Parliament's resolution of September 2001, calling for a European administrative law, has not been followed up.
To me, a uniform set of rules applying to all the institutions and bodies could only enhance the Union's relations with its citizens.
I also regret that the Staff Regulations maintain the outdated requirement of prior approval of publications by civil servants.
I acknowledge that the European Ombudsman's mandate is limited. I have consistently maintained the view that a network of ombudsmen and petitions committees is needed to supervise the application of Community law by the Member States. We have developed such a network, to share information, give advice and ensure that complaints go to the most competent body.
Further development of the network could help the Commission, as the Guardian of the Treaties, to focus its resources on the most important issues of principle.
The citizens can never fully believe in the European Union unless Community law is respected at all levels of the Union.
In future Community law, the Member States could include the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The network of ombudsmen in the Member States could also play an essential role in supervising the application of the Charter.
The European Ombudsman would be ready to accept responsibility for referring fundamental cases to the Court of Justice, if no solution could be found in a normal ombudsman investigation.
I do hope that Parliament's representatives in the on the European Convention will support these proposals.
Finally, I would like to express my thanks to all the institutions and bodies, above all to the European Commission, which has cooperated effectively with the Ombudsman to the benefit of the European citizens.
Looking at the results, 345 cases were settled by the institution concerned, after the Ombudsman had informed it of the complaint.
I would also like to thank the European Parliament and its Committee on Petitions for their good advice and support. Special thanks are due to the chairman of the Committee, Mr Gemelli and the rapporteur dealing with the Ombudsman's Annual Report this year, Mr Wyn. I thank you. I welcome their proposals for closer cooperation between the Ombudsman and the Committee on Petitions, which I hope will lead to a concrete outcome to benefit the European citizens.
In 206 cases a critical remark was made, in 48 cases the inquiry resulted in a draft accommodation or proposal for a friendly solution, most of it achieved a success for the complainant.
In six cases a special report was made to the European Parliament, in four of these cases Parliament upheld the Ombudsman's recommendations, and two other cases are still pending.
In 659 cases, a thorough inquiry resulted in the Ombudsman finding that there was no maladministration in the activities of the institution.
When cases are outside the Ombudsman's mandate, we always try to advise the complainant of another body that could deal with the matter. We advised the complainant to go to the national or regional Ombudsman, or petition a national or regional Parliament in 2 293 cases, to petition the European Parliament in 884 cases and to address the Commission in 913 cases.
Over the years, critical voices have been raised, saying that the Ombudsman is not sufficiently known, and that the results for citizens are inadequate because the institutions neither cooperate nor respect their obligation of good administration. Some critical voices have also suggested that the mandate is too narrow and that the European Ombudsman should deal with complaints concerning Community law wherever it is applied in the Union or even be a People's Tribune, always ready to condemn injustice wherever it occurs.
The European Ombudsman is certainly one of the best-known ombudsman institutions in the world. Our information campaign is in 12 languages and addresses 350 million citizens and residents of 15 Member States. We have visited every Member State, issued press releases, published information brochures and given many lectures and seminars to publicise the work."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples