EUROPEAN

OMBUDSMAN
By Alina Kulinich
 EUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN
The European Ombudsman is an independent and
impartial body that holds the EU’s institutions and
bodies to account, as well as promoting good
administration. The Ombudsman helps people,
businesses and organisations facing problems with
the EU’s administration by investigating complaints
about maladministration by EU institutions and
bodies, but also by proactively looking into broader
systemic issues.
The European Ombudsman was established by the
Maastricht Treaty (1992).
 Jacob Söderman Professor P. Nikiforos Diamandouros
The first Ombudsman, was elected by Was elected in 2003
Parliament in 1995
The current Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, took office on 1
October 2013
Emily O’Reilly was first elected as the European Ombudsman in July 2013. Following the European
Parliament elections, she was re-elected for a five year mandate in December 2014 and again in December
2019. Previously, she had been Ireland's first female Ombudsman and Information Commissioner, having
been appointed in 2003, and Commissioner for Environmental Information from 2007. Emily O’Reilly is an
author and a former journalist and broadcaster, whose career has attracted significant domestic and
international recognition.

Emily O'Reilly works with the institutions, agencies and bodies of the European Union to achieve the highest
standard of administrative practices possible for the benefit of European citizens. She does so through
addressing people's concerns voiced in complaints made to her Office and on her own initiative through her
strategic work. The Ombudsman believes that the European Union already has high administrative standards
however needs to set the 'gold standard' in terms of public administration and in its interaction with citizens.
Therefore, she supports the institutions, bodies and agencies of the European Union through suggestions and
recommendations on how to improve their work.
 Maastricht Treaty
Article 138e
1. The European Parliament shall appoint an Ombudsman empowered to receive
complaints from any citizen of the Union or any natural or legal person residing
or having his registered office in a Member State concerning instances of maladministration in the activities
of the Community institutions or bodies, with the
exception of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance acting in their
judicial role.
In accordance with his duties, the Ombudsman shall conduct inquiries for which
he finds grounds, either on his own initiative or on the basis of complaints
submitted to him direct or through a member of the European Parliament, except
where the alleged facts are or have been the subject of legal proceedings.
….
3. The Ombudsman shall be completely independent in the performance of his
duties. In the performance of those duties he shall neither seek nor take
instructions from any body. The Ombudsman may not, during his term of office,
engage in any other occupation, whether gainful or not.
 Treaty of Lisbon
Article 17 shall be amended as follows:
…
paragraph 2 shall be replaced by the following:

‘2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in the Treaties. They
shall have, inter alia:
…

(d) the right to petition the European Parliament, to apply to the European Ombudsman, and to address the
institutions and advisory bodies of the Union in any of the Treaty languages and to obtain a reply in the same
language.

These rights shall be exercised in accordance with the conditions and limits defined by the Treaties and by the
measures adopted thereunder.’.
 STATUTE OF THE
EUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN
 Statute
Article 1

1. The regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties shall be as
laid down by this Decision in accordance with Article 195(4) of the Treaty establishing the European
Community and Article 107d(4) of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community.
2. The Ombudsman shall perform his duties in accordance with the powers conferred on the Community
institutions and bodies by the Treaties.
…
Article 2

1. Within the framework of the aforementioned Treaties and the conditions laid down therein, the
Ombudsman shall help to uncover maladministration in the activities of the Community institutions and
bodies, with the exception of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance acting in their judicial role,
and make recommendations with a view to putting an end to it. No action by any other authority or person
may be the subject of a complaint to the Ombudsman.
 Statute

Article 2

2. Any citizen of the Union or any natural or legal person residing or having his registered office in a Member
State of the Union may, directly or through a Member of the European Parliament, refer a complaint to the
Ombudsman in respect of an instance of maladministration in the activities of Community institutions or
bodies, with the exception of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance acting in their judicial role.
The Ombudsman shall inform the institution or body concerned as soon as a complaint is referred to him.

3. The complaint must allow the person lodging the complaint and the object of the complaint to be identified;
the person lodging the complaint may request that his complaint remain confidential.
 Statute
Article 3

1. The Ombudsman shall, on his own initiative or following a complaint, conduct all the enquiries which he considers justified to
clarify any suspected maladministration in the activities of Community institutions and bodies. He shall inform the institution or
body concerned of such action, which may submit any useful comment to him.

2. The Community institutions and bodies shall be obliged to supply the Ombudsman with any information he has requested from
them and give him access to the files concerned. Access to classified information or documents, in particular to sensitive
documents within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, shall be subject to compliance with the rules on
security of the Community institution or body concerned.

3. The Member States' authorities shall be obliged to provide the Ombudsman, whenever he may so request, via the Permanent
Representations of the Member States to the European Communities, with any information that may help to clarify instances of
maladministration by Community institutions or bodies unless such information is covered by laws or regulations on secrecy or
by provisions preventing its being communicated. Nonetheless, in the latter case, the Member State concerned may allow the
Ombudsman to have this information provided that he undertakes not to divulge it.
 Statute
Article 6

1. The Ombudsman shall be appointed by the European Parliament after each election to the European Parliament for the
duration of its mandate. He shall be eligible for reappointment.

2. The Ombudsman shall be chosen from among persons who are Union citizens, have full civil and political rights, offer every
guarantee of independence, and meet the conditions required for the exercise of the highest judicial office in their country or have
the acknowledged competence and experience to undertake the duties of Ombudsman.

More: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/legal-basis/statute/en
THE EUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN
IN 2020
 Ombudsman welcomes steps to make EU law making more accessible to
the public
European Ombudsman Emily O'Reilly welcomes the new transparency steps taken by the Council of the EU to enable the public better to
exercise its democratic right to have its say in EU law making through following the legislative process.

The measures include proactively publishing progress reports on negotiations on draft laws as well as the Council mandate for negotiations
with the European Parliament. This is in line with proposals made by the Ombudsman in her inquiries into legislative transparency in the
Council and the transparency of trilogues.

The changes mark progress in one of the Ombudsman’s key objectives - ensuring that citizens know what decisions governments are taking
on their behalf in Brussels.

“These new measures are a further step towards legislative transparency in Brussels and allowing citizens to become active participants in
European democracy. Recognising that EU decision making is a shared responsibility between Member States and "Brussels" will help to
change the damaging 'blame Brussels' culture,” said Ms O’Reilly.

“As Ombudsman my task was to put this issue on the table and ask for change. The Council’s paper is the result of the support of all those
who believe that legislative transparency will strengthen and further legitimise the EU.”

More: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/press-release/en/130298
 Council transparency during the COVID-19 crisis
In the context of wider strategic work on the response of the EU administration during the COVID-19 crisis, the Ombudsman has
also been examining the work of the Council of the EU, notably as regards the transparency of its decision making. In particular,
the Ombudsman has assessed the decision by the Council to derogate, temporarily, from its Rules of Procedure during the crisis,
and the implications this has had for its decision-making process and the transparency thereof.

As a first step in this inquiry, the Ombudsman sought to inspect certain documents held by the Council, and set out a series of
questions to the Council. The Council replied to the Ombudsman, agreeing to the inspection request, and setting out a list of
documents, which would be made available for inspection.

More: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/case/en/57387
 European Ombudsman: no maladministration in EPSO refusing
participation in a selection procedure of a candidate that missed the
deadline due to COVID-19 circumstances
The European Ombudsman has issued a decision in case 1445/2020/PL, finding no maladministration occurred by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)
refusing to allow a candidate to take a test after the booking period had expired, having the candidate invoked force majeure reasons as a result of COVID-19.

According to the Ombudsman’s view, when adopting its decision EPSO took due account of the reasons why the applicant missed the relevant deadline, namely
issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Ombudsman’s resolution recalls that EU law clearly recognises that the principle of force majeure may call for flexibility in the application of procedural time
limits. However, this principle is subject to very strict requirements, including that the person concerned must demonstrate the necessary diligence and care.
Following an inquiry by the Ombudsman, EPSO agreed to assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether candidates are faced with circumstances of force majeure. It
identified a number of factors to be considered, one of which is whether the candidate is incapacitated or unable to meet the obligations within the set deadline, due
to serious and unforeseeable circumstances entirely out of their control, and to which they are unable to find a solution.

The Ombudsman noted that EPSO informed the applicant about the booking period more than a week before that period started, and that all applicants were duly
informed that, if they did not book within the given period, their application would be considered withdrawn. The Ombudsman also found that although the applicant
was overwhelmed by the situation caused by the COVID-19 outbreak, that situation can neither be considered unforeseeable or out of the applicant’s control, nor
such that it was impossible to find a solution.

The Ombudsman’s decision closing the case is available here: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/132565.