Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-10-25-Speech-4-007"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20071025.2.4-007"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, I would like to thank the honourable Members for this opportunity to address Parliament on my Annual Report for 2006. I also wish to thank the rapporteur, Ms Sbarbati, and the Committee on Petitions, for their excellent report.
In cases where it is still possible to eliminate the instance of maladministration, I normally make a draft recommendation to the institution, which must respond with a detailed opinion. During 2006, 13 draft recommendations were made.
If an institution fails to respond satisfactorily to a draft recommendation, I may send a special report to the European Parliament. Two special reports were made in 2006. The first concerned the Council’s responsibility for the choice of languages used in its Presidency websites. The second called on the Commission to deal properly with an infringement complaint concerning sports betting services. I am pleased to report that the Commission reacted promptly and positively to that report.
A new feature of the Annual Report which I wish to highlight, with an eye to supporting and encouraging good administration, concerns what I call ‘star cases’ of good practice by institutions, revealed through my inquiries.
I would now like to mention some other activities that I have undertaken during 2006 with a view to ensuring the best possible service to citizens.
Firstly, I signed a memorandum of understanding with the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS). Our agreement aims to ensure the consistent treatment of complaints that raise issues of data protection and to avoid unnecessary duplication.
The agreement allows me to benefit from the expertise of the EDPS by consulting him in cases where the text of the Data Protection Regulation and existing case-law leave room for divergent views. This has already proved to be a useful mechanism for me when dealing with cases in which it is necessary to reconcile the legal right of access to documents with the right to privacy.
I also signed an agreement with the Spanish Government to enable citizens to complain to the European Ombudsman in any of the co-official languages in Spain. I thus aligned my practice with the conclusions reached in June 2005 by the Council, which provide for the use of those languages to facilitate Spanish citizens’ communication with the EU institutions.
Honourable Members, I am grateful for the support for the work of the European Ombudsman expressed in Ms Sbarbati’s report, and I would like to inform Parliament that, as requested in her report, I am already engaged in preparing the ground for a memorandum of understanding with the European Investment Bank.
Given that the implementation of EU law is largely the responsibility of Member States’ administrations, I will continue to develop cooperation through the European network of ombudsmen. I am happy to inform you that the sixth meeting of the network took place last week in this very building. At the conclusion of that successful meeting, we adopted by consensus a statement that aims to make the EU dimension of the work of national and regional ombudsmen better known, and to clarify the service they provide to people who complain about matters that fall within the scope of EU law.
The voluntary cooperation among ombudsmen that is now crystallised in the statement can, I believe, make an important and growing contribution to the European Union’s ability to deliver concrete results, by ensuring that citizens can enjoy their rights as an everyday reality and that problems are solved in ways that are close to the citizen.
My report records progress in handling complaints, promoting good administration and providing knowledge about the Ombudsman’s role. I received 3 830 complaints in 2006. That means that the total number of complaints has stabilised at around the level reached following the 53% increase in 2004.
The European Ombudsman was established to help bring the Union closer to citizens and to give the EU administration a ‘human face’. A fundamental aspect of our institution is that the Ombudsman is an individual who communicates personally with citizens, who reviews their cases, and who seeks to resolve their problems and complaints.
Each one of these ‘microcommunications’ constitutes an opportunity to build trust between citizens and the institutions. In pursuit of this goal, I will continue to promote a constructive dialogue with the institutions and to draw their attention to problems so that they can improve their performance.
The way in which a public administration reacts to complaints is a key measure of how citizen-focused it is. While progress has been made in many areas, the year 2006 regrettably saw a rise in the proportion of cases which I had to close with a critical remark.
That should be cause for concern for anyone who wants better relations between the EU and its citizens. Complaints offer an opportunity to put things right and to demonstrate that the institution concerned is serious about respecting the citizens’ fundamental right to good administration.
I am not sure that citizens can easily reconcile the statements often made by institutions concerning their desire to get ‘closer to the citizen’, and for ‘more openness’, with the fact that the very same institutions frequently fail to take up the opportunities offered by the Ombudsman to improve relations and increase transparency. I am positively encouraged, however, by a number of indications that, during the present year, 2007, there is a much greater willingness to take up the opportunities offered by my inquiries to resolve complaints.
Such cooperation is essential, because the Ombudsman cannot succeed alone. Ensuring a top-class administration is a task that must be tackled in tandem with the EU institutions. Delivering on promises, providing proper redress mechanisms, learning from mistakes, working openly and allowing for public scrutiny – these are the all-important ‘means’ towards building trust.
Equally, the European Ombudsman must work concertedly and systematically with national and regional colleagues to ensure that citizens’ rights are fully respected throughout the Union. Finally, the Ombudsman must continue to reach out to citizens so that they can become aware of his services.
With Parliament’s support and guidance, I will continue to endeavour to build on existing achievements with a view to truly fulfilling my institutional mandate of bringing the Union closer to citizens and giving the EU administration a ‘human face’.
I am delighted to inform you that the proportion of complaints falling within the mandate has gone up. This suggests that citizens are beginning to have a better knowledge both of my mandate and of that of my national and regional colleagues in the European Network of Ombudsmen, which is thus commensurately strengthened to the benefit of all concerned.
The total number of inquiries dealt with in 2006 was 586. Of these, 66% concerned the Commission. Given that the Commission is the EU institution with which citizens have most reason to have material contact, it is normal that it should be the principal target of inquiries.
During 2006, 250 decisions closing inquiries were made. In 95 cases, the inquiry revealed no maladministration. Such a finding is not always negative for the complainant, who at least has the benefit of a full explanation from the institution concerned. Even when maladministration is not found, I may identify opportunities to improve the quality of administration provided by the institutions. If so, I point them out in a further remark.
Many of my inquiries result in a win-win outcome that satisfies both the complainant and the institution complained against. During 2006, 64 cases were settled by the institution concerned to the satisfaction of the complainant.
Whenever I find maladministration, I try to achieve a friendly solution, if possible. Three friendly solutions were achieved in 2006 and a further 27 proposals for such a solution were under consideration by the institution concerned at the end of the year.
When a friendly solution is not possible, I close the case with a critical remark, or make a draft recommendation. A critical remark is appropriate if it is no longer possible for the institution concerned to eliminate the instance of maladministration. I wish to emphasise that the criticism is intended to be constructive, so as to help avoid similar maladministration in the future. In 2006, I closed 41 inquiries in this way.
To better monitor the impact of my criticism and advice, I have this year launched a study of the follow-up to all critical remarks made in 2006, as well as to the 38 cases involving a further remark made during the same year. The results of these studies should provide further encouragement to the institutions concerned to improve their practices and develop a culture of service to citizens."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples