Watchdog’s inquiry is branded a ‘whitewash’

Date: 23/10/1997

By Leyla Linton

THE European Commission has been cleared of maladministration over its handling of complaints from citizens about alleged breaches of EU law by member states, after a six-month inquiry by Ombudsman Jacob Söderman.

But critics who had hoped Söderman would bring the Commission to book over delays in the infringement procedure and its lack of transparency have accused him of a “whitewash”.

When he launched his inquiry in the spring, Söderman said he wanted to ensure that citizens who complained to the Commission were not “treated in an arrogant and high-handed way”.

He also investigated allegations that the Commission took too long to deal with complaints, failed to keep complainants properly informed and failed to give reasons when it concluded there had been no infringement.

Critics of the process argue that, in some situations, political pressure from member states is brought to bear on the Commission which results in cases being strung out or closed to avoid conflict.

But Söderman concluded that the Commission's answers to his request for information on its infringement procedures were “constructive and service-minded and showed no evidence of maladministration”.

In a letter to Commission President Jacques Santer outlining his findings, the Ombudsman added that it appeared from the Commission's comments that it acknowledged receipt of complaints and kept complainants informed about the action it was taking. The institution's own rules stipulated that decisions on how to proceed with infringement cases had to be made within a year.

Söderman added that he was satisfied with the way the Commission had taken on board one of his suggestions, namely that it should send complainants a provisional conclusion where it found no breach of EU law and give them time to respond.

A spokesman for the Ombudsman admitted, however, that Söderman had not double-checked the Commission's claims. “The Commission has to comply with what it has promised. This is a very good foundation for dealing with complaints,” he said.

Critics of the Commission's infringement policy feel let down by the Ombudsman's conclusions. They believe that the Commission's claims do not tally with reality.

One insider said many cases were not dealt with within 12 months and described the inquiry as “a secretary-general whitewash which does not get below the surface”, adding: “It is not the Ombudsman's job to act as a spokesman for the Commission.”

Environmental campaigner Jo Carter, whose complaint about the building of the Newbury bypass in the UK was among those which prompted the inquiry, said she was surprised by the outcome.

“To decide suddenly now that everything is hunky-dory does not ring true,” she said. “We still have this unaccountability of the Commission. They just tell us to go away and keep quiet. In this day and age, that does not wash anymore.”

Carter said the Ombudsman's investigation was a “total travesty of justice” and added that ordinary citizens now had nowhere to turn if they wanted to challenge the Commission.

John Robinson, a public affairs consultant with Robinson Linton Associates, also expressed surprise that the Ombudsman had given the Commission “such a clean sheet”.

Robinson, who has followed infringement procedures closely for many years, cited the example of a packaging case in which the Commission decided to open such procedures back in July 1995 but had since made no progress. “On 1 October, the Commission was going to publish the way in which it was going to accelerate the infringement procedure further. It has not done so. We have no idea when this commitment is going to be met,” he said.