Interview with Emily O’Reilly, European Ombudsman: “EU institutions have higher transparency levels than many Member States”

The Eurosceptic movement has raised serious doubts on the transparency of the European Union among others faults it highlighted as characterising the functioning of the EU.

Is that really true? One of the best qualified persons in Europe to assess the transparency and the good or bad functioning of the European institutions is Emily O’Reilly, the European Ombudsman, who accepted to give an interview to Vladimir Adrian Costea, for Europunkt, on hot topics such as the maladministration in the institutions and their transparency with regard to the TTIP, the tobacco lobbying or the work taken up by European Commissioners after they leave office.

Citeşte varianta în română aici.

Citeşte varianta în română aici.

Vladimir Adrian Costea: What was the evolution of the number of complaints you have received regarding the maladministration in the institutions and bodies of the European Union in the last five years?

Emily O’Reilly: Since becoming European Ombudsman in 2013, I have aimed to build on the work of my two predecessors by making the office more visible and more relevant. My aim is simply to make the office more useful both for citizens and for the institutions themselves.

Part of this strategy involved establishing a team in the office that researches issues or areas where the Ombudsman can usefully start a strategic inquiry that will ultimately be beneficial to many citizens. A good example of this was my inquiry into the transparency of TTIP, the planned EU-US free trade deal. The result was many more documents being made available to the public.

I have also started to use public consultations more frequently in my inquiries, such as the one concerning the transparency of trilogues, the informal meetings to discuss legislative proposals.

These broad own-initiative inquiries as well as the public consultations have pre-empted many individual complaints that we would otherwise have had.  During the past five years we received on average 2000 complaints per year and opened around 250 to 350 inquiries a year.

Which are the main problems signalled by the European citizens in their complaints?

The largest proportion of complaints (22,4%) concern transparency issues such as access to documents and access to information. This is closely followed (21,7%) by other institutional matters such as unnecessary delays in responding to a question by a member of the public or too-lengthy decision-making. Companies turn to us if they run into problems with EU public tenders or contracts while others may turn to us concerning how the Commission deals with Member States who have infringed EU law. My office deals with complaints about all EU institutions, agencies or bodies. The complainant must first have approached the institution in question so see if the problem can be remedied. If the person is not satisfied with the answer, he or she can turn to my office. We will take a look at the facts and decide whether to open an inquiry.

In 2015 we opened four inquiries from Romania while 56 complaints we did not inquire into as they either concerned the national public administration or a non-EU institution. In all cases we try to direct the complainant to someone who can help them. The cases from Romanian citizens opened this year mainly concerned an institution’s failure to reply to letters.

Which are the reasons for the emergence and the persistence of these problems?

In any public administration – local, national, or European – there are going to be problems. There is no such thing as a perfect administration. Some complaints arise simply due to an error on the part of the administration and some hint at wider more systemic issues.

The EU public administration has to be seen in the context of the higher expectations that people have about transparency. A whole generation is growing up that has only ever known social media and the internet. They expect to have quick access to information, documents and decisions. This represents a fundamental change also for the EU institutions. On top of this comes the fact that as citizens tend to perceive the EU as being far removed from their daily lives, the EU needs to set the gold standard when it comes to a transparent and accountable administration.

How would you describe the performance of the European institutions’ in tackling the problems and which measures do you think would be appropriate in order to prevent further faulty maladministration in the institutions and bodies of the European Union?

It is important to remember that the EU institutions have higher transparency levels than many Member States. Like on many issues, the relatively few incidences where an EU institution or body acts in a poor manner tends to get media coverage. The incidences where the EU institutions have made real efforts to follow my suggestions, tend to slip under the radar. Having said that, an ombudsman work is never over. Part of prevention of poor administration lies with having a strong independent Ombudsman – one who the administration knows is keeping a close eye on how things are being run.

Do you consider that the institutions and bodies of the EU were generally receptive to the messages issued by the European Ombudsman?

One measure of a democracy is how its institutions treat the recommendations made by an Ombudsman. In this sense, it is relatively easy for me: the EU is a well-functioning democratic organisation. Compliance with my proposals is now at 90 percent; the highest ever level and a rate that I am very pleased with. More generally, politicians at the EU level are well aware of how transparency can increase people’s trust. This awareness – plus higher expectations from citizens themselves – has changed the game in terms of what my office can ask of EU institutions. Some of the transparency moves I have requested the institutions to make – and which they have done – would not have been politically possible just ten years ago.

Were there any situations when the degree of receptivity was rather low?

Despite the high rate of compliance, there are, of course, some cases where I would have preferred a different outcome. One such case concerns the transparency of tobacco lobbying in the European Commission.

In this inquiry I found that the Commission – with the exception of the Directorate General in charge of Health – had not been adhering to its UN obligations on being as transparent as possible about meetings with tobacco industry representatives. These meetings effectively only came to light if a Member of the European Parliament asked a question about them or if there was an access-to-documents request.  I asked the Commission to proactively publish all meetings – and their minutes – its staff has with tobacco lobbyists. The Commission responded that it felt it was already complying with the UN rules in this area and has so far not moved to be more transparent about these meetings. I remain puzzled as to why the Commission did not follow my proposals. It would have been uncomplicated to implement and would have sent a clear positive message to the wider public about how seriously the institution takes these issues.

There was also the recent matter concerning former Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso’s decision to take a post as adviser at US bank Goldman Sachs. The move caused widespread public concern, including a petition started by EU staff which gained over 150.000 signatures. Initially I was surprised by the relative slowness of the Commission’s response to the issue. Lately, however, Commission President Juncker has indicated that he is willing to revise the rules governing the work Commissioners may take up once they leave their post. This is encouraging and I look forward to seeing how the Commission finally addresses these issues.

When it comes to the so-called revolving doors issues – that is officials leaving the institutions to work in a private sector job that involves them lobbying their former colleagues – it is the Commission’s approach that is avant-garde. It publishes the names of senior officials who leave the Commission for new jobs, after assessing those new roles for potential conflicts of interest. I would like all EU institutions and agencies to follow these transparency steps.