EU citizens’ watchdog is up and running but has a long way to go

Date: 24/07/1997

THE EU Ombudsman has gained new powers in the draft Treaty of Amsterdam, forced the Council of Ministers to perform a U-turn and been given a rapturous reception by the European Parliament.

But even though it has been a good month for Jacob Söderman, ask him if he is enjoying his job as the EU's first-ever citizens' watchdog and he squirms uneasily in his chair.

"This is a marathon, not a 100-metre race," warns the quiet Finn, whose caution is perhaps justified.

For while he is making inroads into EU bureaucracy, Söderman's role still falls well short of that of a champion of citizens' rights.

When the Spanish proposed the creation of the post of EU Ombudsman, they had in mind a troubleshooter who could supervise everything which directly affected the Union's 370 million citizens.

But the idea ran into steady opposition and a compromise was reached which gave the Ombudsman his current, much more limited role to investigate complaints of maladministration by the EU institutions.

For most people, the much-used phrase which has entered into the lexicon of Euro-jargon - a Europe closer to its citizens - remains just that. Critics point out that if they are unhappy with a directive agreed in Brussels or the way their country is implementing it, they have few avenues to pursue.

Söderman agrees. "There is a citizens' Europe for young people who go to study and have a life of possibilities. That is a great step forward from when I was young. But there are still a lot of practical problems, especially for older people, such as double taxation, or getting cross-border car insurance," he says.

Aware of the limitations of his job, the former lawyer is trying to mobilise ombudsmen in each EU member state to deal with single market issues at a national level and to boost their awareness of Union law.

Some, in particular France and Ireland, have been enthusiastic, but Söderman acknowledges that national ombudsmen are not geared up to tackle EU issues and, in particular, cannot necessarily deal with complaints in all 11 languages. But he is prepared to be patient, saying: "I have to wait a little. It might work."

If, by the end of his mandate, he has failed to achieve his goal of establishing an effective network at national level to fill the gap and directly protect citizens' rights, Söderman believes the Spanish idea should be looked at again.

"The thing that must be discussed in 1999 is whether the Ombudsman should supervise freedom of movement," he explains.

Söderman is not looking for quick results, but instead wants to concentrate on building the foundations of what is, after all, a relatively new office set up only two years ago.

This sure but steady approach, however, annoys some critics who were hoping for a more high-profile figure.

British Socialist MEP Eddy Newman, former chairman of the European Parliament's petitions committee, welcomed Söderman's annual report when it was published last week, but told fellow MEPs that he feared the number of EU citizens who knew of the Ombudsman's existence was closer to 1% than 100%.

Söderman is conscious of the need to publicise his role, but believes it is more important to have a targeted information campaign, fearing that promising more than he can deliver would be counterproductive.

Around 65% of the complaints sent into his office already fall outside his remit - a figure which also attracts criticism from those who feel it demonstrates that, at times, the ombudsman is nothing more than a referral service for complainants.

Söderman responds by pointing out that all ombudsmen receive inadmissible complaints. "In Nordic countries, even if the ombudsman has been known for 200 years, 20-30% of complaints are outside his mandate," he stresses.

It is a problem he is trying to deal with, but despite his information campaign, the number of complaints which are beyond his scope has not dropped much.

Söderman is certainly no self-publicist. He has said that he is not Santa Claus or Batman out to get the baddies, is slow to blow his own trumpet and seems to wish to underplay his achievements.

When, for example, the Council of Ministers decided to reverse its earlier refusal to cooperate with him over a complaint about access to justice and home affairs documents, Söderman refused to chalk it up as a victory for himself, preferring instead to credit the new UK government with being behind the Council's change of heart.

He is also not crowing about his new powers under the revised EU treaty, which will open the door for citizens to complain to him about justice and home affairs matters.

Söderman says this could be important in the long run, but argues it is too limited to have much effect in the short term. "It is important that I can supervise asylum and police matters, but I can only supervise them at Community level, so I do not think it means too much in the beginning," he says, although he adds: "In the future, it could mean a lot, for example when Europol comes into operation. In principle, it is very good."

The European Commission is now in Söderman's sights as he probes its infringement procedures and the age limits it imposes on applicants for staff posts.

His own-initiative enquiry into the way infringement proceedings are handled was prompted by complaints from environmental campaigners and others that the Commission was guilty of maladministration in failing to take the UK to the European Court of Justice for breaching an environmental directive.

In his letter to Commission President Jacques Santer, requesting a response by the end of this month, Söderman did not mince his words, warning that the Commission had been accused of acting in a "high-handed and arrogant" way.

But despite such frank language, those hoping that the Ombudsman will be extra tough with the Commission may be disappointed. Söderman is taking a softly softly approach, and is quick to stress how cooperative it is being.

And although he stresses that he won an earlier battle with the Commission's legal service over whether he could deal with infringement issues, Söderman concedes that he cannot tackle the issue of its discretion to act.

He says that it is important for an organ like the Commission to have discretion over whether to undertake legal action, acknowledging: "It is a heavy process."

Söderman's focus will instead be on issues such as transparency of procedures, arguing: "If the Commission opens the process, most of the dissatisfaction will disappear."

Observers may also take heart from the fact that while he cannot deal with the issue of discretion head-on, it will be touched on, with Söderman stressing that he may be able to answer some of the complainants' concerns about the Commission's discretionary powers.

"There is a leading principle in Community law that even if you have discretion, you have to follow legal principles. You cannot discriminate, be arbitrary, or abuse powers."

Söderman makes no bones about the maze which ordinary citizens have to find their way through if they want to pursue a case which falls outside his remit.

He acknowledges that the right to petition the Parliament is "a heavy weapon" more useful for issues of principle, but stresses that some Commission departments - such as those dealing with consumer or social issues - are helpful to citizens who approach them directly.

And if his plan to create an effective network of national ombudsmen fails, Söderman suggests that citizens should contact the part-time legal officers of the Commission based in each member state.

He freely admits that he does not have all the answers, but insists that he is doing his best, saying: "I try to be a champion."