• Tá Tú Anseo:
• Baile /
• Archived /
• Workshop on rights of European Citizenship (23 Nov 1996)

Workshop on rights of European Citizenship (23 Nov 1996)

Workshop on rights of European Citizenship (23 Nov 1996)

The following speech was delivered by the Ombudsman, Mr. Kevin Murphy, on the 23 November 1996, to the European Movement Conference in Dublin.

WORKSHOP ON RIGHTS OF EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP ACCESS TO OMBUDSMAN/COMMITTEE OF PETITIONS/ EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE

Introduction by Mr. Kevin Murphy, Irish Ombudsman

On 12 July 1995 the European Parliament elected Mr. Jacob Soderman as the first Ombudsman of the European Union. This followed from the provision, in the part of the Maastricht Treaty establishing citizenship of the European Union, of the right to apply to the European Ombudsman as well as to petition the European Parliament through its Committee on Petitions. Any citizen of the Union, including any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a member state, may complain to the Ombudsman about maladministration in the activities of Community institutions or bodies, with the exception of the Court of Justice and Court of First Instance acting in their judicial role.

In this short introduction, I will concentrate on the respective roles of National Ombudsmen and the European Ombudsman and arrangements to ensure better co-ordination between them. Clearly greater clarification is required because in the first six months of the European Ombudsman's existence, almost 80% of complaints to him were inadmissible because they related to matters outside his jurisdiction. Some of the confusion may have arisen because complainants assumed that the European Ombudsman could deal with complaints against national institutions in their implementation of community law. Since community law becomes part of national law either directly or through national legislation or secondary legislation, complaints against national institutions are a matter for national Ombudsmen. The mandates of the European Ombudsman and the national Ombudsmen are separate and distinct and each office is completely independent within its own jurisdiction.

It is too early to assess the likely volume and make up of complaints to the European Ombudsman. Preliminary indications are that the majority of admissible complaints will be against the Commission and most of them will relate either to alleged lack of transparency and refusal of access to information or to work relationships between the institutions and their staff. As the main Community organ which makes decisions having a direct impact on citizens, it is not surprising that the majority of complaints should be about the Commission.

At national level, as we all know, Community Law impacts significantly on citizens in the areas of

• - agriculture, where the rules of the common agricultural policy dominate;
• - social welfare and health in relation to persons moving from one member state to another,
• - equality of treatment in relation to social welfare, health and employment;
• - free movement of labour and the rights of employees to remain in a member state after termination of employment;
• - recognition of professional or technical qualifications in cases where nationals of one member state are taking up employment in another member state;
• - import and export regulations particularly in relation to trade with non EU countries;
• - information on the environment and the failure of public authorities to comply with Community rules and regulations

At the request of Mr. Soderman I gave a paper to a seminar last September in Strasbourg about co-operation between National Ombudsmen and the European Ombudsman. In preparing the paper, I took into account those complaints which my Office had already received involving community law. I found that maladministration often arose from the complexity of the interaction which is necessary between the authorities of different member states and/or the Community. Complainants simply fall between the cracks and it is often difficult to determine where the fault lies. I concluded that the national Ombudsmen's "needs" could be categorised as follows:

• - a greater knowledge of Community law;
• - access to information on the implementation of Community law in other member states;
• - improved access to the Commission where a particular interpretation of Community law by national institutions was disputed;
• - scope for dialogue with the Commission where the Commission's interpretation of Community law was disputed;
• - improved access to the Commission in relation to a member state's failure to fulfil a Treaty obligation.

The following specific points were agreed at the Strasbourg seminar:-

1. The European Ombudsman will receive queries from national Ombudsmen about Community law and either provide replies directly, or channel the query to an appropriate Union institution or body for response.
2. The European Ombudsman will make available to national Ombudsmen reports of his decisions and will be prepared to act as a channel for exchange of information between national Ombudsmen about Community law matters, including cases. National Ombudsmen will consider having a separate section in their Annual Report on cases involving Community law.
3. Each Ombudsman will appoint one or more existing officials as Liaison Officer for Community law matters with a view to developing greater co-operation between Offices and greater exchange of information so that citizens are correctly advised as to how best to pursue their complaints. A seminar for Liaison Officers to deal with practical issues in the application of Community law may be arranged in 1997.

I hope that these measures will, over time, develop a consciousness among citizens of member states of their rights as citizens of the Union.

It may not be appropriate for me to talk about the relationship between the European Ombudsman and the Committee of Petitions of the European Parliament since I have no practical experience in that respect. So I will confine myself to quoting from the European Ombudsman's Annual Report which said "In principle, it is for the citizens to choose whether to address a petition to the Parliament or to apply to the Ombudsman. However, it may not always be obvious to the citizen which course of action is the more appropriate in his circumstances. The Committee on Petitions and the Ombudsman have therefore co-operated closely in order to clarify their respective functions and to establish methods of co-operation. A procedure has been established for the transfer of cases between the Committee on Petitions and the Ombudsman, with the agreement of the petitioner or complainant.

It has been agreed that the Ombudsman will not deal with a matter pending before the Committee on Petitions unless, with the consent of the petitioner, that Committee transfers it to the Ombudsman.

Nor will the Ombudsman deal with a case that has already been examined and dealt with by the Committee on Petitions unless there are relevant new elements that justify recourse to the Ombudsman. Finally, the Ombudsman will consider inadmissible any complaint about decisions of the Committee on Petitions itself, since its decisions (like those of the European Parliament) are political matters".