| | ECT-195Ombudsman    
| ECT | Article 195 | 1. The European Parliament shall appoint an Ombudsman empowered to receive complaints from any citizen of the Union or any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State concerning instances of maladministration in the activities of the Community institutions or bodies, with the exception of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance acting in their judicial role.
In accordance with his duties, the Ombudsman shall conduct inquiries for which he finds grounds, either on his own initiative or on the basis of complaints submitted to him direct or through a Member of the European Parliament, except where the alleged facts are or have been the subject of legal proceedings. Where the Ombudsman establishes an instance of maladministration, he shall refer the matter to the institution concerned, which shall have a period of three months in which to inform him of its views. The Ombudsman shall then forward a report to the European Parliament and the institution concerned. The person lodging the complaint shall be informed of the outcome of such inquiries.
The Ombudsman shall submit an annual report to the European Parliament on the outcome of his inquiries.
2. The Ombudsman shall be appointed after each election of the European Parliament for the duration of its term of office. The Ombudsman shall be eligible for reappointment.
The Ombudsman may be dismissed by the Court of Justice at the request of the European Parliament if he no longer fulfils the conditions required for the performance of his duties or if he is guilty of serious misconduct.
3. The Ombudsman shall be completely independent in the performance of his duties. In the performance of those duties he shall neither seek nor take instructions from any body. The Ombudsman may not, during his term of office, engage in any other occupation, whether gainful or not.
4. The European Parliament shall, after seeking an opinion from the Commission and with the approval of the Council acting by a qualified majority, lay down the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties. |
| Case | Pte | Ref | Text | T-140/04-A
Adviesbureau Ehcon | 83-86 | ECT-195 | 83. Finally, with regard to the loss as a result of the costs allegedly incurred in bringing the matter before the Ombudsman, it should be pointed out that, in the institution of the Ombudsman, the Treaty has given citizens of the Union an alternative remedy to that of an action before the Community judicature in order to protect their interests. That alternative non-judicial remedy meets specific criteria and does not necessarily have the same objective as judicial proceedings (Case T209/00 Lamberts v Ombudsman [2002] ECR II-2203, paragraph 65).
84. Moreover, as is clear from Article 195(1) EC and Article 2(6) and (7) of Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom of the European Parliament of 9 March 1994 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties (OJ 1994 L 113, p. 15), the two remedies cannot be pursued at the same time. Indeed, although complaints submitted to the Ombudsman do not affect time-limits for bringing actions before the Community judicature, the Ombudsman must none the less cease consideration of a complaint and declare it inadmissible if the citizen simultaneously brings an action before the Community judicature based on the same facts. It is therefore for the citizen to decide which of the two available remedies is likely to serve his interests best (Lamberts v Ombudsman , paragraph 83 above, paragraph 66).
85. It follows that the applicant's decision to bring the complaints in question before the Ombudsman was its own independent choice and that it was under no obligation to proceed in that way before properly bringing its action before the Court of First Instance.
86. Consequently, the applicant has not managed to establish the existence of a direct causal relationship between the alleged costs incurred before the Ombudsman and the alleged illegalities. A citizen's free choice to refer a matter to the Ombudsman cannot appear to be the direct and necessary consequence of cases of improper administration which may be attributable to Community institutions or bodies. |
|
|
