KONČNO
A6-0276/2005
29.9.2005
POROČILO
o letnem poročilu o delu evropskega varuha človekovih pravic za leto 2004
(2005/2136(INI))
Odbor za peticije
Poročevalec:
Manolis Mavrommatis
PE 360.167v03-00
VSEBINA
PREDLOG RESOLUCIJE EVROPSKEGA PARLAMENTA.....................................................3
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT................................................................................................8
POSTOPEK................................................................................................................................9
PREDLOG RESOLUCIJE EVROPSKEGA PARLAMENTA
o letnem poročilu o delu evropskega varuha človekovih pravic za leto 2004
( 2005/2136(INI) )
Evropski parlament ,
– ob upoštevanju letnega poročila o delu evropskega varuha človekovih pravic za leto 2004,
– ob upoštevanju člena 195 Pogodbe ES,
– ob upoštevanju člena 43 Listine o temeljnih pravicah,
– ob upoštevanju resolucije z dne 17. novembra 1993 o demokraciji, preglednosti in subsidiarnosti ter medinstitucionalnem sporazumu o postopkih za izvajanje načela subsidiarnosti; predpisov in splošnih pogojev, ki urejajo opravljanje nalog varuha človekovih pravic, in ob upoštevanju dogovorjenih postopkov Spravnega odbora v skladu s členom 189 b ES
UL C 329, 6.12.1993, str. 132. ,
– ob upoštevanju svojih prejšnjih resolucij o delu evropskega varuha človekovih pravic,
– ob upoštevanju členov 112(1) in 195(2) svojega Poslovnika,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za peticije ( A6‑0276/2005 ),
A. ker so Listino o temeljnih pravicah slavnostno razglasili v Nici 7. decembra 2000 in ker obstaja politična volja, da se ji dodeli pravno zavezujoč značaj,
B. ker člen 41 Listine o temeljnih pravicah določa, da ima vsaka oseba pravico, da institucije in organi Unije njegove ali njene zadeve obravnavajo nepristransko, pravično in v razumnem roku,
C. ker člen 43 Listine zagotavlja, da se ‘vsak državljan Unije ali vsaka fizična ali pravna oseba, ki prebiva ali ima registriran sedež v eni izmed držav članic Unije, lahko obrne na varuha človekovih pravic v zvezi z nepravilnostmi v dejanjih institucij in organov Skupnosti, z izjemo Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti in Sodišča prve stopnje, ko delujeta v svoji pravosodni funkciji,
D. ker letos sedanji varuh človekovih pravic, g. Nikiforos Diamandouros, začenja svoj drugi mandat in se septembra praznuje deseta obletnica uvedbe funkcije evropskega varuha človekovih pravic,
E. ker je bilo letno poročilo varuha človekovih pravic 8. marca 2005 formalno podano predsedniku Evropskega parlamenta, varuh človekovih pravic g. Nikiforos Diamandouoros pa je 10. maja 2005 v Strasbourgu poročilo predstavil Odboru za peticije,
F. ker se je v letu 2004 število pritožb naslovljenih na varuha človekovih pravic v primerjavi s prejšnjim letom znatno povečalo (za 53%) in ker je le polovica tega povečanja (51%) posledica dejstva, da so državljani desetih novih držav članic postali evropski državljani,
G. ker je varuh človekovih pravic nepristranski organ, ki hkrati nudi državljanom izven sodno pomoč v Uniji, in ker je v letu 2004 nudil učinkovito pomoč v 70% vseh predloženih primerov, vključno z nedopustnimi pritožbami,
H. ker je varuh človekovih pravic v letu 2004 zaključil 251 preiskav, od tega 247 poizvedb na podlagi pritožb in 4 na lastno pobudo, in ker je bilo 65 primerov po pritožbi varuhu človekovih pravic rešenih s strani institucij ali organov samih in predlaganih 12 sporazumnih rešitev,
I. ker je varuh človekovih pravic podal Evropskemu parlamentu posebno poročilo (0I/2/2003/GG) v odgovor na pritožbo v zvezi s primerom, v katerem je bil po mnenju varuha človekovih pravic pritožnik, v službi Komisije, deležen diskriminacijskih zaposlitvenih pogojev in glede katerega ni bilo dosežene sporazumne rešitve in ker Komisija ni sprejela njegovega osnutka priporočila,
J. ker je predložitev posebnega poročila Evropskemu parlamentu osnovno sredstvo, s katerim lahko varuh človekovih pravic išče podporo Evropskega parlamenta in njegovega Odbora za peticije, da bi zadostil državljanom, ki so jim bile kršene pravice, poročilo pa poleg tega spodbuja izboljšanje standardov evropske uprave,
K. ker preiskave varuha človekovih pravic pogosto pripeljejo do pozitivnega izida za pritožnike in ker lahko pomagajo izboljšati kakovost upravnih storitev,
L. ker lahko številne kritične pripombe varuha človekovih pravic, podane v poročilu za leto 2004 glede primerov slabega upravljanja, s sprejetjem in izvajanjem primernih ukrepov s strani institucij EU in drugih organov pomagajo preprečevati, da bi se napake in slabo delovanje ponavljali v prihodnosti,
M. ker je bila na Evropski parlament naslovljena kritična pripomba zaradi neuspešnega uveljavljanja pravil o kajenju v prostorih le-tega,
N. ker varuh človekov pravic s pripravljanjem srečanj in skupnih dogodkov še naprej gradi konstruktivne delovne odnose z institucijami in drugimi organi Evropske unije, z namenom doseganja večje skladnosti pri prizadevanju za skupne cilje,
O. ker letno poročilo prikazuje prizadevanja varuha človekovih pravic za širitev in krepitev mreže nacionalnih in regionalnih varuhov človekovih pravic Unije, držav prosilk, Norveške in Islandije preko izmenjave informacij in dobrih praks ob ustreznem upoštevanju dejstva, da so pooblastila, področja delovanja in odgovornosti varuhov človekovih pravic pogosto zelo različna,
P. ker bi sodelovanje Odbora za peticije Evropskega parlamenta v tej mreži olajšalo praktično sodelovanje med evropskimi institucijami in nacionalnimi ter regionalnimi varuhi človekovih pravic, glede na različnost odgovornosti, ki jim pripadajo,
Q. ker je v letu 2004 varuh človekovih pravic razširil svoje komunikacijske dejavnosti zlasti informativne obiske, javne prireditve, konference in število intervjujev, da bi povečal osveščenost državljanov o upravi Skupnosti,
R. ker je Evropski parlament 6. septembra 2001 soglasno sprejel Kodeks primernega obnašanja za javne uslužbence, kakor je svetoval varuh človekovih pravic v posebnem poročilu aprila 2000, ki pa ga Komisija še ni sprejela,
S. ker je g. Diamandouros pred kratkim v pismu predsedniku Evropskega parlamenta in na srečanju s predsednikom Komisije in kolegijem komisarjev priporočil skupen pristop vseh institucij in organov v zvezi s Kodeksom primernega obnašanja za javne uslužbence Evropske unije,
T. ker je varuh človekovih pravic v svojem poročilu ponovno izrazil zahtevo za revizijo statuta, ki ureja njegove dejavnosti,
1. odobri letno poročilo za leto 2004, ki ga je predložil evropski varuh človekovih pravic in pozdravlja novo obliko in organizacijo vsebine poročila, ki poleg izčrpnega pregleda tekom leta obravnavanih primerov in izvedenih preiskav vsebuje tudi jasno tematsko analizo;
2. čestita Uradu varuha človekovih pravic za večjo pestrost in posodobitev letnih publikacij, z namenom zadostiti raznim potrebam pritožnikov, poslancev, strokovnjakov in širše javnosti;
3. pozdravlja večjo javno prepoznavnost, ki jo je dosegel varuh človekovih pravic v svojih prizadevanjih za obveščanje javnosti, in ugotavlja, da boljša obveščenost lahko pripomore k znižanju števila pritožb, ki niso v okviru njegove pristojnosti;
4. poziva varuha človekovih pravic, da naj se še naprej trudi ter na učinkovit in prilagodljiv način razvija svoje dejavnosti, da bodo državljani gledali nanj kot na varuha dobrega upravljanja evropskih institucij;
5. ugotavlja, da kljub povečanju števila pritožb, naslovljenih na varuha človekovih pravic, 75% teh pritožb ni v okviru njegovih pristojnosti, ker so v večini primerov predmet pritožb nacionalne oblasti, ki so odgovorne za izvajanje zakonodaje Skupnosti;
6. poziva varuha človekovih pravic, da opredeli pojem nepravilnosti
Varuh človekovih pravic je v letnem poročilu za leto 1997 predlagal naslednjo definicijo: Nepravilnost se pojavi, ko javni organ ne deluje v skladu s pravilom ali načelom, ki je zanj zavezujoče. z vidika institucij in organov, na katere se nanaša, tako da sestavi natančen in izčrpen seznam, in z vidika zadev, ki so lahko predmet pritožbe, tako da odločno izključi tiste, za katere so odgovorne oblasti držav članic;
7. poziva varuha človekovih pravic, naj še naprej preko mreže, neposredno na primerno nacionalno ali lokalno raven, v skladu z načelom subsidiarnosti, predaja pritožbe, ki ne sodijo v njegovo pristojnost Odboru za peticije;
8. podpira namero varuha človekovih pravic, da kolikor je le mogoče, poveča število predlogov za prijateljsko poravnavo;
9. poziva varuha človekovih pravic, naj preda zadeve Odboru za peticije, tako da se na sejah odbora lahko razpravlja o morebitni zavrnitvi prijateljske rešitve ali osnutka priporočila pristojne institucije ali organa in, če je primerno, upošteva mnenja pritožnika;
10. ugotavlja, da je bilo zaključenih sedem primerov, ko je vpletena institucija sprejela osnutek priporočila, v enem primeru pa je bilo izdano posebno poročilo (OI/2/2003GG),
11. pozdravlja posebno poročilo varuha človekovih pravic (OI/2/2003/GG) in priporoča Komisiji, da zaradi spoštovanja pravic evropskih državljanov in za kakovostnejšo evropsko upravo ponovno preuči pravila o zaposlovanju tiskovnih predstavnikov delegacij v tretjih državah;
12. poziva varuha človekovih pravic, naj bo vedno, ko poda posebno poročilo Parlamentu prisoten na Odboru za peticije, skladno s členom 195 Poslovnika in meni, da bi Parlament na splošno moral sprejeti stališče o takih poročilih, z resolucijo pa sprejeti ločeno poročilo;
13. podpira prizadevanja varuha človekovih pravic, da bi zagotovil odobritev krajšega roka obravnave pritožb s strani evropskih institucij v zvezi z zavrnitvijo dostopa do dokumentov in poziva Svet, naj sprejme ta predlog;
14. poziva vse institucije in organe Skupnosti, naj čim bolj splošno tolmačijo določbe Uredbe (ES) št 1049/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 30. maja 2001 o javnem dostopu do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije
UL L 145, 31.5.2001, str. 43. ; še posebej poziva Komisijo, naj ne zavrača vpogleda v dokumente z izgovorom, da so namenjeni interni uporabi;
15. poziva Komisijo, naj pritožbe o kršitvah obravnava v razumnem roku;
16. poziva Komisijo, naj ukrepa in reši nastale razmere takrat ,ko institucije ali telesa upoštevajo različna pravila ravnanja in poziva Komisijo, naj sprejme Evropski kodeks primernega ravnanja javnih uslužbencev;
17. poziva strani, ki so vpletene v preiskave varuha človekovih pravic, naj se v korespondenci sklicujejo na ustrezen člen Evropskega kodeksa in poziva vse institucije in organe Skupnosti, naj pregledajo Kodeks in poročajo varuhu človekovih pravic o njegovem izvajanju v skladu s členom 27 tega Kodeksa;
18. izpostavlja, da mora Komisija začeti priprave za vložitev zakona o dobrem upravljanju;
19. podpira potrebo, da se v luči razvoja zadnjih desetih let pregleda statut varuha človekovih pravic, sprejet 9. marca 1994, vključno s preiskovalnimi pooblastili Evropskega urada za boj proti goljufijam (OLAF) in sprejetjem Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001;
20. spodbuja širitev in krepitev sistema izvensodnih prizivov, kar je za državljane alternativa pravnim postopkom v obliki odločitev in priporočil, ki pravno niso zavezujoči in ne predstavljajo prisilnih ukrepov;
21. poziva varuha človekovih pravic, naj v primeru kršitev pravic, opredeljenih v Listini o temeljnih pravicah, skladno s svojimi pooblastili priporoča, če je primerno, naj pripravi posebno poročilo skladno s členom 195(2) in naj tesno sodeluje z Evropskim parlamentom in prihodnjo Agencijo za temeljne pravice, da bo rešitev najustreznejša;
22. pozdravlja tesno sodelovanje med evropskim in nacionalnimi, regionalnimi ter lokalnimi varuhi človekovih pravic preko mreže varuhov človekovih pravic, kar je učinkovit mehanizem za hitro in učinkovito ravnanje s pritožbami državljanov;
23. meni, da bo vključitev Odbora za peticije Evropskega parlamenta v mrežo omogočila močnejše in obsežnejše redne stike z odbori za peticije pri nacionalnih parlamentih in z varuhi človekovih pravic držav članic;
24. izraža pohvalo varuhu človekovih pravic, ker si prizadeva za promocijo svoje vloge, obvešča državljane o njihovih pravicah z distribucijo gradiva, z obiski držav članic in s konferencami;
25. poziva Evropski urad za izbor osebja (EPSO), naj pri postopkih zaposlovanja spoštuje pravila in prakso odprtosti in preglednosti; še zlasti tako, da v skladu s členom 4 Evropskega kodeksa o primernem ravnanju javnih uslužbencev navede razloge za odločitve;
26. pohvali dobre delovne odnose med Uradom varuha človekovih pravic in Odborom za peticije, vključno s procesom medsebojnega prenosa primerov;
27. naroči svojemu predsedniku, naj posreduje to resolucijo in poročilo Odbora za peticije Svetu, Komisiji, evropskemu varuhu človekovih pravic, vladam in parlamentom držav članic in varuhom človekovih pravic ali enakovrednim organom v državah članicah.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Historical Background
At national level, the first Ombudsman (‘Justitie’) of the modern age was established by the Swedish Constitution in 1809. At European level, it was during the 1970s that the European Parliament, shortly before its election by universal suffrage, called on the Commission to consider creating a Community ombudsman in an attempt to remedy the complexity of its bureaucratic structure. It is worth referring back to the report on the appointment of a Community Ombudsman drawn up by Sir Derek Walker-Smith, on behalf of the Legal Affairs Committee, and adopted in plenary on 6 April 1979. In this pathfinding report
Report on the appointment of a Community Ombudsman by the European Parliament, presented in 1979 by the Legal Affairs Committee, EC, (1979) OJ C 29/79. , the committee stressed that, where an administration or European civil service was already in place, the Ombudsman could personify or even give a human face to European bureaucracy in the eyes of the public.
This idea would be taken up in the final report of the Adonnino Committee, published in 1985
EC Adonnino Committee, 'A people's Europe' in Bulletin of the European Communities, supp. 7/85. , in which the Ombudsman is suggested as one of the symbols of a new European citizenship, along with the flag, emblem and anthem. Yet it was not until the 1991 Intergovernmental Conference, which paved the way for the Maastricht Treaty, that, on a proposal from Luxembourg, an agreement on the establishment of a European Ombudsman responsible for cases of maladministration in Community institutions and bodies was accepted by the Twelve.
The first holder of the office, Mr Jacob Söderman of Finland, was appointed in July 1995. When Mr Söderman decided to retire before the end of his second term of office, Mr Nikoforos Diamandouros of Greece took over the position in April 2003. He was re-elected by the European Parliament on 11 January 2005 and will continue in office during the sixth parliamentary term.
The function of the European Ombudsman ten years on
In medio stat virtus ('virtue stands in the middle') was the maxim of the scholastic philosophers of the Middle Ages and could well become the motto of the European Ombudsman as the office approaches its tenth anniversary. The European Ombudsman's role, which was originally seen as that of a 'parliamentary commissioner', with essentially consultative and supervisory duties, has evolved rapidly, especially in practice, with the result that the Ombudsman now acts as an external control mechanism for Europe’s public administration, helping to expose recurring malfunctions .
This can be illustrated by a statistical comparison: between 1995 and 2002 the average rate of increase in complaints was 17.9%
The International Ombudsman Yearbook, volume 6/2002, p. 161. ; in 2004 the rate was five times higher than the previous year (10%). As regards the relevance of complaints submitted to the Ombudsman, from the outset inadmissible complaints have exceeded 70% (78% in 1995; 73% in 1999; and 75% in 2003). Lastly, by 2003 draft recommendations and special reports totalled 58 and eight respectively, having increased steadily since the year 2000.
Analysis of complaints examined in 2004
The statistics for the year 2004 show that the institution has already reached maturity: 3726 complaints were received in 2004 (an increase of 53% over 2003), of which 3536 were from individual citizens and 190 from companies and associations. The sharp rise in the number of complaints is not just a result of enlargement: 657 complaints came from the new Member States, equivalent to 51% of the rate of increase for 2004, while the remaining 49% were accounted for by complaints from the 15 old Member States and from third countries.
The most numerous complaints came from citizens of the following countries: 482 from Spain (12.9%), 464 from Germany (12.4%), 303 from France (8.1%), 285 from Poland (7.6%), 269 from Italy (7.2%), 268 from Belgium (7.2%) and 195 from the United Kingdom (5.2%).
In terms of the EU’s population, however, the geographical distribution of complaints is slightly different: Germany (18%), France (13.5%), United Kingdom (13%), Italy (12.6%), Spain (9.2%), Poland (8.3%) and the Netherlands (3.5%).
Admissibility and processing of complaints
2730 complaints (74.8 %) fell outside the Ombudsman’s mandate, in most cases because they did not refer to a Community institution or body (91.4%) or did not concern instances of maladministration (6.2%). However, 919 complaints (25.2%) did fall within the Ombudsman’s mandate and of these 490 were admissible, while 147 did not give rise to an enquiry, with the result that enquiries were conducted in 343 cases, in other words approximately 10% of the total number of complaints lodged in 2004. Among the most frequent reasons for complaints being declared inadmissible were the failure to make appropriate administrative approaches beforehand and uncertainty surrounding the author or object of the complaint.
Overall, the Ombudsman dealt with 534 enquiries in 2004, of which 351 were new ones, including eight own-initiatives, and 183 carried over from previous years.
Of the complaints that led to an enquiry, 375 were against the European Commission (69%), 58 against the European Communities Personnel Selection Office (10.7%), 48 against the European Parliament (8.9%) and 22 against the Council of the European Union (7.2%). Some enquiries concerned more than one institution or body.
The main types of maladministration justifying an enquiry were lack of transparency, including refusal of information (22%), discrimination (19%), avoidable delay (12%), unsatisfactory procedures (9%), unfairness or abuse of power (7%), failure to fulfil obligations deriving from Article 226 of the EC Treaty (7%), negligence (6%) and legal error (5%).
In addition to the enquiries opened, the Ombudsman gave complainants advice (in 2117 cases), recommending that they turn to a national or regional ombudsman (906 cases), address a petition to the European Parliament (179 complainants), or contact the European Commission (359 cases). He also transferred 71 complaints, including 54 to other ombudsmen, 13 to the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions and four to the European Commission.
Lastly, in 2004 the Ombudsman closed 251 enquiries, four of which were opened on his own initiative. As for final decisions, 113 cases (44.3%) were closed with a finding of no maladministration, 65 cases were settled by the institution or body itself following the complaint, five cases were closed when a friendly solution was achieved, 36 (around 1% of the total) resulted in a critical remark to the institution, seven included a draft recommendation accepted by the institution and one resulted in a special report to the European Parliament in the absence of a satisfactory reply from the institution concerning a draft recommendation.
Thematic analysis
The 2004 report offers a number of keys to understanding. In particular, Chapters 1 and 2 provide a full overview of how complaints have been dealt with and at the same time classify them thematically with a breakdown according to the type of decision closing the enquiry. Chapter 3 details more than one fifth of the closure decisions in 2004.
The regulation on public access to documents (1049/2001 of 30 May 2001) is frequently at the origin of complaints to the Ombudsman. In 2004, the Ombudsman settled 11 complaints in this area, of which nine were against the Commission and one each against OLAF and the Council. In one case, he secured a friendly solution from the Commission, under which it supplied the complainant, whose application for access to documents had been rather vague, with a list of documents concerning negotiations in the World Trade Organisation, thus enabling him to make a more precise application. In other cases, even if no maladministration was detected, the Ombudsman also made remarks. For example, while accepting that the Commission was entitled to refuse access to parts of a mission report by its Food and Veterinary Office, he suggested that in future it would be useful to record non-confidential information separately from the rest of the report so as to simplify the granting of partial access. In other cases, the Ombudsman made quite critical remarks. For example, he noted that the European Parliament’s rules on traineeships could be revised in order to make public the list of names of persons who accept the offer of a traineeship, as requested by a complainant
A further area of complaint concerned the failure to act by the Commission as guardian of the Treaty, in particular with regard to monitoring the application of Community law . Chapter 3 illustrates three decisions in this category, where the most frequent subjects of complaint concern the failure to register complaints, undue delay and failure to investigate properly. To take one example, the Ombudsman made critical remarks concerning the failure to register complaints. In reply the Commission promised in future to comply more strictly with rules on clarity and transparency and in particular undertook to state the reasons for its refusal to register a complaint. In addition, following a draft recommendation, it agreed to comply with the procedures established in a communication to the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law. In another case, the Ombudsman made a further remark asking the Commission to explain its reasons for closing Article 226 complaints in a more intelligible manner. The Commission also apologised to the complainant for having failed to give him a right to reply in respect of a closure decision.
A further category of complaints concerns the award and management of contracts and grants . Chapter 3 details nine decisions under this heading. In one case, where the Commission was at fault with regard to precontractual responsibilities, it accepted a draft recommendation to pay compensation on an ex gratia basis. In another case, the Commission acted promptly to rectify an error in the reading of a postmark, which had led it to reject a proposal from the complainant for having been submitted after the deadline. In a third case, where a contract was terminated because of failure to meet contractual obligations on the part of a company, the Ombudsman considered that mere reference to the results of an OLAF investigation in the notification sent to the complainant by the Community institutions was not adequate. The Ombudsman also drew the Commission’s attention to a general principle governing the award of grants, namely the need to strike a fair balance between the interests of private persons and the general public interest.
Recruitment and working relations with the Community institutions and bodies gave rise to a whole series of staff complaints. Chapter 3 includes details of 15 decisions in this area, which also gave the Ombudsman the opportunity to deal with issues of general importance. These included the critical remarks addressed to Parliament because of its failure to apply the rules on smoking at its premises, following a complaint from staff. In particular, the Ombudsman disagreed with Parliament's opinion that the question of failure to comply with the rules for coexistence between smokers and non-smokers was a matter for individual responsibility. Parliament's Bureau endorsed the Ombudsman's criticisms and decided to bring forward by two years the total ban on smoking and to strengthen supervision of compliance with the existing restrictions.
Interinstitutional cooperation
Cooperation between the Ombudsman and the institution or body concerned by a complaint is vital in order to restore citizens' confidence in the respect for the principles of sound administration at European level. Moreover, the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour adopted by Parliament in 2001 stipulates that the failure to comply with these principles may be the subject of a complaint to the Ombudsman (Article 26). That is why the Ombudsman is requesting Parliament's support to secure the effective cooperation of the Commission (the subject of 70% of enquiries) in all cases where complaints are made in future. The Committee on Petitions endorses this position and also supports the Ombudsman in his aim of increasing the number of proposals for friendly solutions , in order to facilitate the adoption of corrective measures in the event of maladministration.
Application and revision of the European Code
This committee deplores the fact that, despite its repeated requests to the competent Community authorities to enforce the Ombudsman's draft recommendations and take action on his critical remarks (De Rossa resolution, paragraph 9), there has been no appreciable change in attitude towards a systematic commitment to combating acts or behaviour constituting maladministration. Furthermore, the Commission persists in using its own code, seemingly ignoring all reminders (most recently in paragraph 21 of the De Rossa resolution) to adopt and apply the European Union Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, which is the only one including provision for informing the public (Article 25). As a result, the Commission is promoting uncertainty and inconsistency in the management of relations with citizens.
For all these reasons, the Committee on Petitions urges the Commission to take measures to end the current situation, whereby institutions and bodies are applying different codes of conduct. Furthermore, it calls on the parties concerned by an Ombudsman's enquiry to refer to the relevant articles of the European Code in their correspondence so as to prevent any instances of maladministration. Lastly, it takes the opportunity to call on all institutions to contribute to the review of the European Code , as provided for in Article 27 thereof.
Shortening deadlines and full explanations in the event of failure to comply with reasonable time limits
The Committee on Petitions endorses the Ombudsman's efforts to secure acceptance by the European Institutions of shorter deadlines for dealing with complaints concerning refusals to grant access to documents and urges the Council to accept this proposal. In addition, it deplores the fact that some institutions are unable to provide convincing explanations for their failure to act over long periods of time (almost two years in the case of complaints 2185/2002/IP and 2204/2002/MF against the Commission). It supports the Ombudsman's critical remarks on this clear lack of action and advocates at least the application by analogy of the measures laid down in Article 17(2) of the European Code in the event of decisions on complex matters.
Reflections on developments in the Ombudsman's role
One thing stands out clearly in each year's Ombudsman's report, namely, the consistently high percentage of complaints falling outside his mandate (74.8% in 2004, 75% in 2003, 72% in 2002 and 80% in 1995). Furthermore, an overwhelming majority of these complaints are not directed at a Community institution or body. At a time when a debate is in progress on the failure on the part of European institutions and national governments to educate the peoples of the Union, following the twin referendum failures in France and the Netherlands on the European Constitutional Treaty, the European Ombudsman and the Committee on Petitions need to fulfil their mission of engaging in dialogue with citizens. In particular, they need to explain in a clear and simple manner what their respective powers are and what the fundamental criteria are (allocation of powers, subsidiarity and proportionality) for recognising where 'European powers' derive from and how far they extend, as well as the scope of, and consequently the limits of control over, national administrative acts which fall within the Union's sphere of competence.
From this standpoint, the initiatives taken by the European Ombudsman, together with a proactive concept of his role can only be encouraged. With regard to this role, the current Ombudsman has shown that he is well aware of its potential by proposing on the one hand to step up cooperation with his national or regional counterparts, through joint enquiries or establishing a telephone hotline with access to the ombudsmen's network, and, on the other hand, opening more own-initiative enquiries and promoting the highest standards of European public administration.
The statute governing the Ombudsman's activities derives from a parliamentary decision of 9 March 1994. That is why Mr Diamandouros has repeated his request that the statute be amended with a view inter alia to giving the Ombudsman broader powers of enquiry, particularly as regards access to documents and the hearing of witnesses.
While endorsing the need for such measures, the Committee on Petitions stresses that it is vital to maintain the impartiality of this influential body which acts as a conciliator between the European public administration and citizens and providing extrajudicial remedies. Accordingly, and regardless of the uncertainty surrounding the fate of the Constitutional Treaty, it does not seem appropriate to give the Ombudsman the power to bring legal proceedings. The fact that the European Ombudsman has always shown a preference for the interpretation of Community rules provided by the case law of the European Court of Justice does not mean that he needs to ask for its rulings on the most sensitive aspects of the cases he examines, such as those where questions of principle concerning violations of fundamental rights are at stake.
However, Parliament has just adopted the Gal own-initiative report
Own-initiative report on promotion and protection of fundamental rights; the role of national and European institutions including the Fundamental Rights Agency (2005-2007(INI)), adopted on 26 May 2005. on the promotion and protection of fundamental rights, in which it points out that the institutions enjoy the right to bring actions before the Court in the interests of the law and that Parliament can, using that means, 'defend the rights of citizens in cases where fundamental rights might be affected by a Union act'. Here, the Ombudsman could play his role by condemning cases of maladministration that may constitute a violation of fundamental rights through special reports or by highlighting in his annual report particular cases symptomatic of recurring malfunctions in European bureaucracy, in particular in the light of the principles and procedural rules on good administration and transparency enshrined in Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. With this in view, the European Ombudsman could enjoy fruitful cooperation with the future Fundamental Rights Agency and play an important role in the multi-layered structure ('network of networks') envisioned in the abovementioned report, so as to avoid overlapping of activities by different bodies.
Lastly, the Committee on Petitions endorses the Ombudsman's request to the European Commission to propose legislation seeking to promote good administration in the Union's institutions and bodies. It stresses, however, that this is not essential if the Commission chooses to adopt the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour for its own services. That is why the European Parliament urges the new Commission under the presidency of Mr Barroso to take all necessary measures without delay to show that, despite the political uncertainty surrounding the Union's future, it genuinely intends to launch the ‘Plan D’ for democracy and dialogue with citizens announced at the June part-session in Strasbourg, so as to help the Union overcome the crisis of public confidence in its institutions.
POSTOPEK
Naslov
Letno poročilo o delu evropskega varuha človekovih pravic za leto 2004
Št. postopka
2005/2136(INI)
Podlaga v Poslovniku
člena 112(1) in 195(2)
Pristojni odbor Datum razglasitve dovoljenja na zasedanju
PETI 4.7.2005
Odbori, zaprošeni za mnenje Datum razglasitve na zasedanju
Odbori, ki niso dali mnenja Datum sklepa
Okrepljeno sodelovanje Datum razglasitve na zasedanju
Predlog(-i) resolucije, vključen(-i) v poročilo
Poročevalec(-ka) Datum imenovanja
Manolis Mavrommatis 17.3.2005
Nadomeščeni(-a) poročevalec(-ka)
Obravnava v odboru
14.7.2005
Datum sprejetja
13.9.2005
Izid končnega glasovanja
za:
proti:
vzdržani:
17
0
0
Poslanci, navzoči pri končnem glasovanju
Robert Atkins, Mairead McGuinness, Manolis Mavrommatis, Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, Andreas Schwab, Richard Seeber, Rainer Wieland, Michael Cashman, Proinsias De Rossa, Alexandra Dobolyi, Maria Matsouka, Janelly Fourtou, Diana Wallis, David Hammerstein Mintz, Marcin Libicki, Roger Helmer,
Namestniki, navzoči pri končnem glasovanju
Marie-Hélène Descamps
Namestniki (člen 178(2)), navzoči pri končnem glasovanju
Datum predložitve – A6
29.9.2005
A6-0276/2005
