EURSC Reform

The EU Ombudman Emily O’Reilly has barely got her feet under her desk, but has indicated her approach.

In case 814/2010/JF, finally decided in 2012 the EU Ombudsman found the European Commission guilty of maladministration and requested an independent audit into EURSC, European Schools.

A bitter Commission sought to defend the case and threw their best arguments at the EU Ombudsman. These arguments were rejected.

Since then the European Commission openly admit they are disobeying the EU Ombudsman ruling as they continue to disagree. They have not raised any new arguments that were not aired in the case itself prior to the Decision.

In a written ruling yesterday the EU Ombudsman refused to take any further action on the basis there are “no grounds” for further inquiry. Is deliberate anarchic disobedience not sufficient grounds? Is continued falling standards, the matter at issue in the 2010 case, not grounds? It would appear that after the Decision in April 2012 the European Commission sent some follow up to the EU Ombudsman in July 2012. This follow up has not been disclosed under Freedom of Information requests. Can this be a legitimate ground on which to base a denial of citizens rights?

Worrying times for those who value the role of an effective EU Ombudsman. Are wee faced with a puppet EU Ombudsman, doing the bidding of the Institutions?

More to follow..


Author :


  1. Correction: The European Ombudsman sees no reason to open a NEW inquiry, as we have already dealt twice with the same issue and have not finished dealing with the case closed last year.

    Every year the European Ombudsman conducts a follow-up study to monitor how the EU Institutions have reacted to our decisions in the previous year, and the Commission’s response to case 814/2010/JF will of course be included in this study. The 2012 study is expected to be published later this year at:

    Furthermore, the case handler tells me that the follow-up letter from the Commission from July 2012 referred to here was among the documents submitted to us recently by this complainant.

    For the case referred to above (814/2010/JF), the Ombudsman made the following critical remark:

    “The Commission failed properly to respond to the complainant’s and the Staff Committee’s request for the organisation of an independent external audit of the European Schools. This constitutes an instance of maladministration.”

    Case 814/2010/JF was closed in April 2012. You can find the decision of the European Ombudsman here

    The Ombudsman also did an own initiative inquiry in 2003, where he was satisfied with the response from the Commission:

    “The Ombudsman concludes that the Commission fully recognises its general responsibility to promote good administration by the European Schools in accordance with the same values, principles and standards that apply to the Community institutions and bodies. The Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration by the Commission and closes the inquiry.”

    Best regards,
    Anne Christensen
    European Ombudsman’s office, Brussels

    1. The Complaint has been sent back to the EU Ombudsman as the request was not to have a NEW inquiry, but to request follow up to the European Commission’s continued denial of the EU Ombudsman finding of maladministration using solely arguments that were rejected in the course of the original decision.

    2. given the latest repeat in 2014 of the 2012 fiasco isn’t it time the EU Ombudsman stepped up to correct this maladministration

  2. Is this an Irish Joke?

    Any Obudsman in any of the EU States can question this illogical position.

    The fault is that the European Commission cannot over-rule the state of the Law.

    Reasoned Logic stands precedent in Law not the reverse.

    If this is not addressed by the Onudsman then there are a plethora of Lawyers who could address this for nothing and win handsomely an enormous amount of money for their Clients. You cannot make a Law up that cannot be enacted, or that which is illegal made legal. This is fundamental to any Precedent.

    Rethink your position Ma’am you have fallen in to a hole of your own making. Resign and let someone with nouse take over.

  3. In my experience, she seems to be a “puppet ombudsman” as you stated.
    I submitted an inform against the European Investment Bank (Project Bond Initiative) and the Commission of Energy. These institutions are clearly playing for the Energy Oligopoly.

    Have you heard the news about the Castor Project?, a submarine gas storage in the Spanish Mediterranean Coast that had to be aborted due to seismic activity?… This project was :
    – Unnecessary : We have a generation capacity that doubles energy demand.
    – Unwanted : Spaniards were clearly against it and public demonstrations were many.
    – Unsafe : The EIB ignored all the scientific evidence presented against the project. Seismic risk was evident.

    EIB not only forced its construction even claiming it was “IDEAL” as a pilot project for the Project Bond Initiative but also found a way for not paying for it…
    Well, the project cost more than twice the amount of the initial contract. When seismic activity started, Spanish government hurriedly passed new legislation specific for this project so that in case of failure the contractors where paid through PUBLIC DEBT (surely following EIB instructions)… A few months after the project was shut down because of the seismic activity.

    Spaniards have been endorsed 1.700 million € public debt thanks of this bunch of financial terrorists and our corrupted and illegitimate government.

    Well, the EU Ombudsman filed the case alleging that I have not given the EIB and the Commission of Energy enough time to answer!!!!!!!!!!… Couldn’t she warned them and give them a deadline for an acceptable reply instead of filing my case?!…

    Under the rule of the Euro-Talibans, the losses generated by private sector mistakes are being socialized.

Comments are closed.