Annual report 2002 - EOI

74 ANNUAL REPORT | 2002
THE DECISION
On the basis of the information provided by the complainant and the observations
submitted by the European Court of Justice, the Ombudsman concludes that the case has
been settled by the European Court of Justice to the complainant’s satisfaction. Against
this background, the European Ombudsman decides to close the case.
3.3 FRIENDLY
SOLUTIONS
ACHIEVED BY
THE
OMBUDSMAN
3.3.1 The
European
Parliament
PUBLICATION OF A
REJOINDER TO
REPORT OF THE
COMMITTEE OF
INDEPENDENT
EXPERTS
Decision on complaint
375/2001/IJH against
the European
Parliament
THE COMPLAINT
The complainant was formerly Director General of DG XXIII (Enterprise Policy, Trade,
Tourism and Social Economy) of the Commission. He complained to the Ombudsman
against the European Parliament in March 2001. According to the complainant, the relevant
facts are as follows.
In 1993, the complainant began an internal investigation into allegations of corruption
made against the head of the tourism division of DG XXIII, who has since been tried and
convicted in France for corruption. This person then launched a disinformation campaign
against the complainant. Elements of this disinformation found their way into a report
(rapporteur R. WEMHEUER) which was adopted by the European Parliament, without the
complainant having been heard. After correspondence with the European Parliament, the
complainant considered that the matter had been satisfactorily resolved by the then
President of the Parliament. Subsequently, however, the European Parliament established
the Committee of Independent Experts, which examined amongst other things, the socalled
“tourism affair”. The European Parliament failed to supply to the Committee of
Independent Experts its correspondence with the complainant concerning the Wemheuer
report. As a result, the Committee of Independent Experts mistakenly assumed that
elements of the Wemheuer report critical of the complainant were uncontested and, in its
own report, blamed the complainant for failure to exercise his responsibilities without
hearing him.
On the basis of the above, the complainant alleged that the European Parliament:
1 negligently failed to supply to the Committee of Independent Experts certain relevant
information: i.e. the correspondence between himself and the European Parliament
concerning the Wemheuer report;
2 is responsible for the violation of his fundamental right to be heard in the tourism
affair.
The complainant claimed that the European Parliament should publish a rectification, or
alternatively a rejoinder both in print and on the website of the European Parliament.
THE INQUIRY
The European Parliament’s opinion
In its opinion, the European Parliament made, in summary, the following points:
The Committee of Independent Experts was itself exclusively responsible for the interpretation
of its mandate and for the manner in which it drew its conclusions. It met in
camera and always insisted that its deliberations remain confidential in order to guarantee
its independence.
The President of the European Parliament has no way of knowing which documents the
Committee of Independent Experts scrutinised, nor their sources, nor what contacts were