Watchdog’s teething troubles

Date: 24/07/1997

MUCH continues to be made of the need for the EU to get closer to its citizens. It was the phrase on every European leader's lips in the wake of the turmoil sparked by the Maastricht Treaty ratification process and is still an almost obligatory part of every speech on Europe they make today.

The decision to create an EU Ombudsman to act as a watchdog for ordinary European citizens was heralded as a major step in the right direction. But two years after Jacob Söderman became the first holder of the post, questions are increasingly being asked about whether he can live up to the expectations raised by his appointment, given the limited powers and remit he was granted by the Maastricht Treaty.

That such questions are being raised is in no way the fault of the Ombudsman himself. He has been assiduous in pursuing complaints lodged with his office by members of the public and in launching own-initiative inquiries into issues about which he believes there is cause for concern, such as the way the European Commission handles protests about alleged infringements of Union law or the age limits imposed by EU institutions on recruitment to certain posts.

The problem is that two-thirds of the cases which land on his desk are outside his remit, which is limited to investigating cases of alleged maladministration by the EU institutions. As a result, many of those who beat a path to his door have to be turned away empty-handed. There are, it is true, others they can go to for help, such as the European Parliament's petitions committee, but the complexity of the EU's procedures makes it far from easy for ordinary members of the public to know where to turn to next when they have a complaint.

The original idea behind the move to create an EU Ombudsman was to make the holder of the post a true citizens' champion who could monitor everything directly affecting the lives of the Union's 370 million inhabitants. But some member state governments were reluctant to take such a major step into what was, for those which did not already have a national ombudsman, the unknown, while others feared a threat to their own watchdogs at home. However, Söderman has shown since then that it is possible for the two to co-exist happily and his frustration at the number of cases he has to turn away underlines the extent to which the limits on his powers are hampering his efforts to act as a real citizens' champion.

Many people prefer to take their complaints to a recognisable figure rather than to an anonymous institution whose workings they find difficult to understand. This should be borne in mind by Union leaders when they come back to the issue of internal EU reform. By broadening the role of the Ombudsman, they would send a clear signal that they mean what they say when they talk about a 'citizens' Europe'.