|
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| Study Visit to the office of the European Ombudsman in Strasbourg
|
| |
 Representatives of CSD Ombudsman Task Force visited the office of the European Ombudsman in Strasbourg on July 26, 2005 and met with members of his staff. Dr. Maria Yordanova, Director of CSD Law Program, Mr. Borislav Belazelkov, Justice at the Supreme Court of Cassation, Mr. Dimitar Markov, Project Coordinator at CSD Law Program and Ms. Dragomira Paunova, CSD Law Program Project Assistant participated in the meeting.
On behalf of the European Ombudsman Prof. Nikiforos Diamandouros, Mr. Joao Sant’Anna, Head of the Administrative and Finance Department, Mr. Jose Martinez Aragon, Principal Legal Adviser, Mr. Ioannis Dimitrakopoulos, Principal Legal Adviser, and Mr. Branislav Urbanic, Legal Officer, acquainted the Bulgarian participants with the organization, structure and practical aspects of the activity of the office.
They explained that under the Treaty of European Union (Maastricht Treaty), there are two main goals before the ombudsman institution:
- defending the human rights and freedoms;
- enhancing the knowledge of the Community law among the EU citizens.
 Mr. Sant’Anna presented the initial steps in the establishment of the office of the European Ombudsman. He underlined the importance of the support of the European Parliament and the European Commission therein, including through providing experienced staff, aware in details of the functions and the day-to-day work of the EU institutions, and enough financing within the framework of the Parliament’s budget.
Step by step, the office was set up and began to function as an independent institution with a separate budget, continuing, however, to cooperate actively with the European parliament. The office of the European Ombudsman comprises two main departments: legal and administrative, as well as the cabinet of the ombudsman and a communication unit. There are about fifty servants, working in it, most of which are legal officers, dealing with the conduct of investigations.
Mr.Martinez presented the procedure of investigation and the different ways in which it may develop. He explained that every complaint should meet certain requirements, which is guaranteed by introducing a template to be filled –in by the complainants. Thanks to that unified form, most of the complaints are received by e-mail, (10 000 e-mails for year 2004), which facilitates their processing. The other part of the complaints are sent by fax or by post, thus excluding the personal visits to the ombudsman and leaving more time for the legal officers to carry out effectively the investigations.
He explained that the complaints together with all other related documents are public, unless the complainant has explicitly declared that he/she wants them to remain confidential. Mr. Martinez also spoke on the necessary prerequisites for a complaint to be admitted for consideration, outnumbered in art. 2 of the Statute of the Ombudsman. Within one week following the receipt of a complaint the Ombudsman sends to the complainant an aknowledgement of the receipt indicating the registration number of the complaint and the officer it has been assigned to. Afterwards the ombudsman has a one-month term to evaluate whether the complaint meets the relevant requirements to be considred admissible. It was pointed out as an interesting fact that before a national ombudsman the percentage of inadmissible complaints is usually about 30%, while before the European Ombudsman the percentage reaches 75%.
If all of the envisaged criteria are fulfilled, the Ombudsman can decide to start an inquiry into a complaint. When this is the case, the first step is to send the complaint and any annexes to the institution or body concerned for an opinion. When the opinion is received, it is sent to the complainant for observations. In some cases, the institution or body itself takes steps to settle the case to the satisfaction of the complainant and the case is then closed as "settled by the institution". In other cases, the complainant decides to drop the complaint and the file is closed for this reason. If the complaint is neither settled by the institution nor dropped by the complainant, the Ombudsman continues his inquiries. If the inquiries reveal no instance of maladministration, the complainant and the institution or body are informed accordingly and the case is closed.
If in the course of an inquiry the Ombudsman reveals an instance of maladministration he would seek a friendly solution to eliminate it and satisfy the complainant. If a friendly solution is not possible, or if the search for a friendly solution is unsuccessful, the Ombudsman either closes the file with a critical remark to the institution or body concerned, or makes a formal finding of maladministration with draft recommendations. A critical remark is considered appropriate for cases where the instance of maladministration appears to have no general implications and no follow-up action by the Ombudsman seems necessary.
In cases where follow-up action by the Ombudsman does appear necessary (that is, more serious cases of maladministration, or cases that have general implications), the Ombudsman makes a decision with draft recommendations to the institution or body concerned. In accordance with Article 3 (6) of the Statute of the Ombudsman, the institution or body must send a detailed opinion within three months. The detailed opinion could consist of acceptance of the Ombudsman's decision and a description of the measures taken to implement the recommendations. If a Community institution or body fails to respond satisfactorily to a draft recommendation, Article 3 (7) provides for the Ombudsman to send a report to the European Parliament and to the institution or body concerned. The report may contain recommendations, which have to be implemented by the respective institution or body.
The importance of the due respect for the terms mentioned above was pointed out as one of the main preconditions for efficient functioning of the institution and strengthening its prestige as a reliable mechanism for human rights promotion and protection.
Other topics discussed during the meeting included the problems with the establishment of the ombudsman institution in Bulgaria, the interaction between the Bulgarian Ombudsman and the European Ombudsman and the possibilities for Bulgarian citizens and legal persons to address the European Ombudsman after Bulgaria’s EU accession.
The participants also discussed the recently published edition of the Code of the Good Administrative Behavior in Bulgarian with a new introduction by the current European Ombudsman Prof. Nikiforos Diamandouros. Тhe publication, to whose translation CSD experts had assisted, will be available soon on the website of the European Ombudsman as well as on the Ombudsman Information Network. The last annual report (2004) of the European Ombudsman was also presented to the CSD experts.
| |
|
| |
|
CSD.bg |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
| ©
Center for the Study of Democracy. |
 |
|
The web page you are trying to reach is no longer updated and has been archived. To visit us, please click here. |
|
