More and more European citizens are aware of the existence and work of the European Ombudsman's office, according to its annual report for 2018, published on Tuesday 14 May.
For the Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, this development is demonstrated by the sharp increase in the number of complaints (+17%) from citizens, civil society, business and the media, collected by her office during 2018.
“I attribute this [increase] not to worsening standards of administration within the EU but because of a higher awareness of the work my office does and the positive outcomes we can achieve”, she wrote on the first page of the report.
Another result of the report: among the investigations closed by the Ombudsman's office in 2018, the largest proportion (24.6%) concerned transparency within the European Union administration, including access to information and documents.
Triple investigation into opacity of the EU Council
In terms of transparency, the EU Council seems to be particularly on the Ombudsman's radar, as three separate investigations into the opacity of national government decision-making at EU level are under way.
The first survey focuses on how the EU treats and makes public, or not, the Eurogroup's documents, examining the work of the three committees that prepare the Eurogroup's ministerial meetings. The Ombudsman deplores the fact that the documents indicating when these committees meet and what they discuss are not made public. According to her, this opacity makes “it extremely difficult for citizens to monitor Eurozone governance”, while “the financial crisis showed the impact of Eurogroup decisions on the lives of millions”.
The second survey concerns the way in which fishing quotas are set each year by national ministers. The Ombudsman regrets that these quotas are determined during “all night meetings” which are held “completely behind closed doors”, whereas these are extremely important decisions “for the sustainability of fishing stocks and of jobs in fishing communities around Europe”.
Finally, the third investigation examines the fact that the European Commission has refused to make public documents concerning the positions taken by national authorities on the implementation of a set of guidelines on the impact of pesticides on bees provided by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in 2013.
According to Ms O'Reilly, although legitimate, the decision taken by some Member States to oppose the Commission's implementation of these guidelines should have been made public. “European citizens have a right to know the position their own government took, just as they should at member state level”, she said.
Selmayr case
Regarding the controversial appointment of Martin Selmayr, the report recalls that the Commission refused to follow the Ombudsman's recommendation to establish a specific procedure for appointing the Secretary General (see EUROPE 12192/37), missing an opportunity to restore citizens' confidence in the European Union.
To consult the 2018 Annual Report of the Office of the European Ombudsman: https://bit.ly/30lWYdJ. (Original version in French by Damien Genicot - intern)