Annual report 2002 - EOI

COMPLAINTS TO THE OMBUDSMAN 25
2.7.3 Clarifying
the Ombudsman’s
powers of
investigation
In the Annual Report for 1998, the Ombudsman proposed that his powers of investigation
should be clarified, both as regards the inspection of documents and the hearing of
witnesses. The European Parliament adopted a Resolution which urged the Committee on
Institutional Affairs to consider amending Article 3 (2) of the Statute of the Ombudsman,
as proposed in the report drawn up by the Committee on Petitions. 4
On 6 September 2001, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution amending Article 3
(2) of the Statute, based on the report of the Constitutional Affairs Committee (rapporteur,
Teresa Almeida Garrett) A5-0240/2001 - PE 294.729DEF.
The text adopted by the Parliament is as follows:
The Community institutions and bodies shall be obliged to supply the Ombudsman with
any information that he requests of them and to allow him to consult and take copies of
any document. ‘Document’shall mean any content whatever its medium (written on paper
or stored in electronic form or as a sound, visual or audiovisual recording)
They shall give him access to all classified documents originating in a Member State after
having informed the Member State concerned.
In all cases where documents are classified as SECRET (secret) or CONFIDENTIEL
(confidential), in accordance with Article 4, the Ombudsman may not divulge the content
of such documents.
Officials and other servants of Community institutions and bodies shall testify at the
request of the Ombudsman. They shall give complete and truthful information.
In accordance with Article 195 (4) EC, the Commission has the opportunity to give an
opinion on the revised text, which will also require the approval of the Council acting by
qualified majority before it can enter into force.
In its opinion dated 6 March 2002 (COM (2002) 133 final), the Commission argued that
concerning the lifting of secrecy for access to a dossier, it is necessary to comply with
requirements concerning the protection of privacy, industrial secrets and classified information,
and future institutional developments. With regard to documents coming from the
Member States, it is necessary to be consistent with the principles set out in the new
Regulation 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and the Council on public access to
documents and in the framework agreement between the Commission and Parliament. The
principle of obtaining prior authorisation from the Member State in question should be
maintained. Declaration 35 annexed to the Final Act of the Amsterdam Treaty points in
the same direction. With regard to the giving of evidence, the Commission can accept the
removal of the obligation to give evidence under instructions. However, it is important to
maintain the principle whereby officials do not speak on a personal basis but as officials.
The European Ombudsman replied to the Commission’s opinion on 27 June 2002 regretting
its negative views on the proposal and explaining that the European Ombudsman’s
intention is only to see that the Statute fulfils the normal requirements of a modern
Ombudsman institution and thus reflects the EU institutions’ commitment to the principles
of good administration and accountability.
In a letter of 17 December 2002 addressed to the President of the European Parliament,
the Ombudsman suggested that in view of the time that has elapsed since the beginning of
the procedure and the important legal developments which have taken place in the
European Union concerning the powers of investigation attributed to other institutions or
bodies dealing with inquiries, it seemed appropriate to envisage a thorough overhaul of the
provisions of the statute. He therefore suggested that the European Parliament withdraw
the amendments which it has submitted for the Council’s approval under Article 195 EC
4
Report of the Committee on Petitions on the Annual Report of the activities of the European Ombudsman in
1998 (A4-0119/99) Rapporteur : Laura De Esteban Martin