Get The European Ombudsman and Good Administration in The European Union 1st Edition Nikos Vogiatzis (Auth.) Free All Chapters

Download More ebooks [PDF]. Format PDF ebook download PDF KINDLE.
Full download ebooks at ebookmass.com
The European Ombudsman and Good

Administration in the European Union 1st
Edition Nikos Vogiatzis (Auth.)
For dowload this book click BUTTON or LINK below
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-european-
ombudsman-and-good-administration-in-the-european-
union-1st-edition-nikos-vogiatzis-auth/
OR CLICK BUTTON
DOWLOAD NOW
Download More ebooks from https://ebookmass.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
The Contestation of Expertise in the European Union 1st

Edition Vigjilenca Abazi
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-contestation-of-expertise-in-
the-european-union-1st-edition-vigjilenca-abazi/
Feed-in tariffs in the European Union 1st ed. Edition

Béatrice Cointe
https://ebookmass.com/product/feed-in-tariffs-in-the-european-
union-1st-ed-edition-beatrice-cointe/
The European Union And The Technology Shift 1st Edition

Antonina Bakardjieva Engelbrekt
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-european-union-and-the-
technology-shift-1st-edition-antonina-bakardjieva-engelbrekt/
Private Health Insurance and the European Union 1st ed.

Edition Cyril Benoît
https://ebookmass.com/product/private-health-insurance-and-the-
european-union-1st-ed-edition-cyril-benoit/
Integration and Differentiation in the European Union:
Theory and Policies Dirk Leuffen
https://ebookmass.com/product/integration-and-differentiation-in-
the-european-union-theory-and-policies-dirk-leuffen/
European Migration Law (Oxford European Union Law

Library) Daniel Thym
https://ebookmass.com/product/european-migration-law-oxford-
european-union-law-library-daniel-thym/
India and the European Union in a Turbulent World 1st

ed. Edition Rajendra K. Jain
https://ebookmass.com/product/india-and-the-european-union-in-a-
turbulent-world-1st-ed-edition-rajendra-k-jain/
Troikanomics: Austerity, Autonomy and Existential

Crisis in the European Union 1st ed. Edition Ray
Kinsella
https://ebookmass.com/product/troikanomics-austerity-autonomy-
and-existential-crisis-in-the-european-union-1st-ed-edition-ray-
kinsella/
The European Union and the Northern Ireland Peace

Process 1st ed. Edition Giada Lagana
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-european-union-and-the-
northern-ireland-peace-process-1st-ed-edition-giada-lagana/
The European
Ombudsman and Good
Administration in the
European Union
Nikos Vogiatzis
EUROPEAN
A D M I N I S T R AT I V E
GOVERNANCE SERIES
European Administrative Governance
Series editors
Thomas Christiansen
Maastricht University
The Netherlands
Sophie Vanhoonacker
Maastricht University
The Netherlands
The series maps the range of disciplines addressing the study of European
public administration. In particular, contributions to the series will
engage with the role and nature of the evolving bureaucratic processes
of the European Union, including the study of the EU’s civil service,
of organization aspects of individual institutions such as the European
Commission, the Council of Ministers, the External Action Service, the
European Parliament, the European Court and the European Central
Bank and of inter-institutional relations among these and other actors. The
series also welcomes contributions on the growing role of EU agencies,
networks of technical experts and national officials, and of the adminis-
trative dimension of multilevel governance including international orga-
nizations. Of particular interest in this respect will be the emergence of a
European diplomatic service and the management of the EU’s expanding
commercial, foreign, development, security and defence policies, as well
as the role of institutions in a range of other policy areas of the Union.
Beyond this strong focus of EU administrative governance, the series will
also include texts on the development and practice of administrative gov-
ernance within European states. This may include contributions to the
administrative history of Europe, which is not just about rules and regu-
lations governing bureaucracies, or about formal criteria for measuring
the growth of bureaucracies, but rather about the concrete workings of
public administration, both in its executive functions as in its involvement
in policy-making. Furthermore the series will include studies on the inter-
action between the national and European level, with particular attention
for the impact of the EU on domestic administrative systems.
More information about this series at

http://www.springer.com/series/14977
Nikos Vogiatzis
The European
Ombudsman and
Good Administration
in the European
Union
Nikos Vogiatzis
Law School
University of Liverpool
Liverpool, United Kingdom
European Administrative Governance

ISBN 978-1-137-57394-0 ISBN 978-1-137-57395-7 (eBook)
DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-57395-7
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017948169
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

The author(s) has/have asserted their right(s) to be identified as the author(s) of this work
in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the pub-
lisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The
publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institu-
tional affiliations.
Cover credit: Yann Arthus-Bertrand / Getty
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
The registered company address is: The Campus, 4 Crinan Street, London, N1 9XW,
United Kingdom
Acknowledgments
A substantial part of this book is a widely revised or updated version of my

doctoral thesis at the Law School, University of Hull. I should therefore
thank my supervisors, Patrick Birkinshaw and Marton Varju, for enabling
me to commence this project, and of course for their valuable support
throughout that process; and the Law School and Graduate School in
Hull for awarding me a full scholarship for three years. I also thank my
external examiner, Gordon Anthony, for his very helpful suggestions
during and after the viva. Moreover, I wish to thank the Liverpool Law
School for providing me with all the necessary space and resources to
reflect upon and work for this project, without which it would not have
been possible to complete it on time. Research time that informed this
book was also spent at the Centre for European Law and Governance at
Cardiff University in the fall of 2016, and at the Law School, University of
Deusto, in the fall of 2015. I thank both institutions and several colleagues
for insightful discussions.
I have been very fortunate to have received comments and suggestions
from colleagues who kindly read draft chapters of this book. To that end,
I thank Rufat Babayev, Michael Dougan, Mariolina Eliantonio, Michael
Gordon, Maarten Hillebrandt, Anastasia Karatzia, Giuseppe Martinico,
Joana Mendes, Maria Luisa Sanchez Barrueco, Albert Sanchez-Graells,
Melanie Smith, Alexandros Tsadiras and Anchrit Wille for taking the time.
For research assistance I also thank Sharmin Rahman.
I am also grateful to the members of staff of the European Ombudsman
office who kindly agreed to be interviewed in early 2012, and helped with
v
vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
additional queries or requests at the time and more recently—especially

in 2016.
I am grateful to the editors of the series ‘European Administrative
Governance’, Thomas Christiansen and Sophie Vanhoonacker, for their
decision to include this project therein, and also for very helpful com-
ments and guidance not only at the early, but also at the final stages as well.
In addition, I am grateful to the team at Palgrave, in particular Jemima
Warren and Beth Farrow, for their patience, support and responsiveness
throughout the process of completing the manuscript.
On a more personal note, my parents and my sister have always been a
source of love and support, and I am grateful to them. Thank you also to
my friends in the UK, Greece and elsewhere, for relaxing breaks and inter-
esting conversations. It is only appropriate that I dedicate this book to
my partner Mantalena, who has witnessed—effectively since day one—all
the uncertainties and challenges involved in this work. Her love and sup-
port has enabled me to take this project forward, especially during those
moments.
To conclude, a couple of necessary disclaimers. An effort was made to
generally consider developments until the end of August 2016, and all
remaining errors are, of course, the responsibility of the author.
NV, Liverpool, 2017.

Summary
This book explores the work of the European Ombudsman and her or
his contribution to holding the EU institutions to account, through an
examination of complaints on maladministration, own-initiative inquiries
and other proactive efforts. It considers the Ombudsman’s current insti-
tutional and constitutional position and her or his ‘method’ of dealing
with complaints, and unravels the depth of subject matters that fall under
the Ombudsman’s remit. A separate chapter focuses on transparency and
access to documents. The last part of the book critically reflects upon the
present mandate and practice of the Ombudsman and discusses a number
of possible proposals for improvement.
vii
Contents
1 Introduction: The Office of the European Ombudsman

in Its Third Decade of Operation 1
2 The Institutional and Constitutional Position of

the European Ombudsman 13
3 The Link Between the Role of the European Ombudsman

and Democracy 57
4 Exploring the European Ombudsman’s Method: Analysis

of Cases 85
5 A Case-Study: Inquiries on Transparency and Access

to Documents 145
6 Revisiting the Mandate and Practice of the European

Ombudsman 185
ix
x Contents
7 Conclusion 285
Select Bibliography 297
Index311
CHAPTER 1
Introduction: The Office of the European

Ombudsman in Its Third Decade
of Operation
Aims of the Book

The office of the European Ombudsman entered its third decade of
operation in 2015. Created by the Maastricht Treaty and commencing
its supervisory work in September 1995, it has experienced consider-
able growth in terms of complaint-handling or proactive initiatives. The
Ombudsman receives and examines complaints or conducts own-initiative
inquiries on maladministration in the activities of the EU institutions, bod-
ies, offices and agencies.1 To date, the office has seen three office-holders:
Jacob Söderman, Nikiforos Diamandouros and Emily O’Reilly, all former
national ombudsmen in their respective countries (Finland, Greece and
Ireland).
This book explores the work of the European Ombudsman with a view
to ascertaining how the office has improved the quality of the EU adminis-
tration. In addition, it critically reflects upon the current mandate to iden-
tify challenges, and then proposals that would enable the Ombudsman
to make a stronger contribution to accountability and democracy in the
1
See Art 228 TFEU. The Lisbon Treaty accords with the Maastricht version (Art 138e
EC) in that the Court of Justice of the European Union does not fall under the Ombudsman’s
scrutiny when acting in its judicial role. Article 138e EC referred, however, to the—then—
‘Community institutions or bodies’; in this sense, the scope of the Ombudsman’s mandate is
broader post-Lisbon, as will be shown in Chap. 2.
© The Author(s) 2018 1

N. Vogiatzis, The European Ombudsman and Good Administration
in the European Union, European Administrative Governance,
DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-57395-7_1
2 1 INTRODUCTION
EU. When the first European Ombudsman set up the office in September
1995, the EU was clearly in a different stage of development. The same
can be said about the office of the Ombudsman. Indeed, the Ombudsman
is not anymore the cautious ‘beginner’ of the early nineties and is increas-
ingly being perceived as an important actor in EU administrative law
and governance. Sufficient time has elapsed since the inauguration of
the office to assess the Ombudsman’s performance and contribution. As
Emily O’Reilly put it following her election by the European Parliament:
‘[t]wenty years after the Office of the European Ombudsman was created
under the Maastricht Treaty, it is time to re-think its focus, with an eye to
enhancing its impact and visibility’.2 In this context, the ultimate aim of
this book is to contribute to this discussion.
To provide such an overview of the work of the office, the book analy-
ses the European Ombudsman’s method: how has the latter managed to
achieve tangible results and provide redress to complainants in a large
number of areas of administrative activity? This method has included both
proactive initiatives, such as own-initiative inquiries, as well as responding
to specific complaints, which naturally constitutes the area where most
resources are invested. Insofar as the critical assessment of the mandate is
concerned, the book identifies the limitations or challenges of the present
mandate, and then attempts to discuss proposals for improvement.
As an accountability mechanism, the Ombudsman is related and
has contributed to the EU’s democratisation. To give one example, the
Ombudsman is generally considered one of the most prominent EU actors
pushing for greater transparency (and this contribution is explored in a sep-
arate chapter of the book). Likewise, when acting proactively with a view
to safeguarding individuals’ rights or the principles of good administration
(the drafting of a European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour—
ECGAB—is a suitable example here), the Ombudsman is bringing citi-
zens closer to the administration. The Ombudsman’s work in areas such
as openness, transparency, participation and efficiency,3 and the publica-
tion of non-binding principles of good administration which go beyond
the institutions’ legal obligations are not the only reasons why authors
2
See Press release 14/2013, ‘Emily O’Reilly begins work as European Ombudsman’
(2013) available at: www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/press/release.faces/en/51921/html.
bookmark
3
All of which constituting principles of good governance, alongside the principle of
accountability, according to the famous European Commission, ‘European Governance: A
White Paper’ COM (2001) 428 final, 10.
1 INTRODUCTION 3
have observed the Ombudsman’s potential to render EU governance more

accountable. Indeed, ‘life beyond legality’ also means softer instruments
of redress, absence of locus standi requirements, own-initiative inquiries,
in brief, conducting work and undertaking initiatives that the Court can-
not undertake.4 That being said, the European Ombudsman’s method
is primarily characterised by an approach based on law. This involves not
only regular reliance on the case-law of the Court, but also occasional
attempts to interpret the law when the Union judiciary did not have the
opportunity to clarify a matter. Simultaneously, it has been made clear
by the Ombudsman that maladministration is broader than illegality—the
content of the aforementioned ECGAB is indicative of this approach.
European Ombudsman cases or initiatives are increasingly being cited
by accounts discussing the EU administration, accountability5 and the
rule of law.6 Simply put, there is growing interest to identify ‘what the
Ombudsman had to say’ on a specific area of EU administrative activity.
The book shows that the multi-dimensional work of the Ombudsman has
been, at times, rather ambitious. This account also unravels the plethora
of principles or arguments related to the notion of ‘good administra-
tion’ via a closer examination of cases decided by the office. In fact, it
is the Ombudsman’s generally positive record to date, and the measur-
able outputs that have been produced in the area of EU law and gover-
nance that justify the exploration of her or his potential to further improve
accountability and democracy. What makes the European Ombudsman
a particular, but no less interesting institution7 (for those willing to look
beyond enforceability, of course) is the almost inevitable balancing exer-
cises that have to take place within at least two dualities. On the one hand,
4
See Mark Dawson, New governance and the transformation of European law: Coordinating
EU social law and policy (Cambridge University Press 2011) 292–297; see also (with regard
to the EU agencies) Madalina Busuioc, European Agencies: Law and Practices of Accountability
(Oxford University Press 2013) ch 9. More generally, on how ombudsman institutions
‘build good governance in public administration’ see Linda Reif, The Ombudsman, Good
Governance and the Human Rights System (Martinus Nijhoff 2004) ch 3.
5
See, among others, the seminal article by Carol Harlow and Richard Rawlings, ‘Promoting
Accountability in Multilevel Governance: A Network Approach’ (2007) 13 European Law
Journal 542; Herwig Hofmann and Alexander Türk (eds) EU Administrative Governance
(Edward Elgar 2006).
6
See, for example, Anne Peters, ‘The European Ombudsman and the European
Constitution’ (2005) 42 Common Market Law Review 697, at 723.
7
Unless otherwise stated, the term ‘institution’ throughout the book does not refer to
Article 13 TEU; after all, the European Ombudsman does not feature therein.
4 1 INTRODUCTION
a potentially very broad field of activities, clearly going beyond legality

(that is particularly so in the EU as the Ombudsman has endorsed a broad
definition of maladministration), has to be balanced with non-enforce-
ability (which could occasionally mean reputational consequences for the
office if the institutions refuse to comply). On the other, the provision of
meaningful redress to individual complainants has to be balanced with the
promotion of broader public interests and, more generally, improvements
in the standards of the EU administration, often further to identification
of systemic problems.
Insofar as the proposals for reform of the mandate are concerned, which
constitute the last part of the book, it may be wondered what more could
the European Ombudsman really achieve towards the improvement of
the EU’s democratic credentials. After all, it is an institution with limited
resources and staff. To view the powers of the EU institutions and bodies
as a static phenomenon would, of course, disregard the various chapters
in the evolution of the institutional structure and/or the administrative
system of the Union.8 To take the obvious example (and the institution
often perceived as closely associated with the Ombudsman), the European
Parliament in the early days of European integration was perhaps con-
sidered a forum of symbolic value. And yet, owing to the progressive
accumulation of power throughout the treaty reforms, the Parliament is
now in most areas the ‘co-legislator’, and simultaneously the centre of
scholarly attention when discussing the democratic performance of the
Union. Moreover, the aim of the book is to provide pragmatic proposals;
it is well known that institutional reforms in the EU usually take years of
preparation, negotiation and implementation. This is why many of the
proposals advanced here concern the practice of the office within the con-
fines of the existing mandate. Equally important, it is emphasised that a
reform of the mandate and practice of the Ombudsman can only be ‘part
of the parcel’, in that such a reform alone cannot of course ‘cure’ the EU’s
democratic shortcomings. It could also be the case that some observators
are (still) sceptical about ombudsman institutions in general, if not unwill-
ing to look beyond the inability of public sector ombudsmen to produce
8
See, for example, Carol Harlow, ‘Three phases in the evolution of EU administrative law’
in Paul Craig and Gráinne de Búrca (eds) The evolution of EU law (Oxford University Press
2011) 439; Michael Bauer and Jarle Trondal, ‘The administrative system of the European
Union’, in Michael Bauer and Jarle Trondal (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of the European
Administrative System (Palgrave 2015) 1; on the evolution of the ‘Community method’
Renaud Dehousse (ed) The ‘Community method’: Obstinate or obsolete? (Palgrave 2011).
1 INTRODUCTION 5
binding decisions. Yet it is widely understood that extra-judicial redress

mechanisms do matter, and in this sense ombudsman institutions, despite
their different origins, aims and mandates,9 perform an indispensable con-
stitutional function10 which complements the judicial avenue.
In this context, the book makes a twofold contribution to the broader
literature on EU law and governance. First, it offers a much needed insight
into the depth of the work of the European Ombudsman and her or his
method, more than 20 years since the establishment of the institution.
In so doing, it examines her or his role not only from the perspective of
EU administrative law, for example the monitoring of the requirements of
the right to good administration under Article 41 of the Charter (a right
which was adopted further to the Ombudsman’s initiatives), but also from
the perspective of good administration and good governance, for example
the principles of good administration as they appear in the ECGAB, own-
initiative inquiries, inter-institutional collaboration, relations with peers
within the European Network of Ombudsmen, citizens’ participation and
involvement of civil society. The book unravels the varied level of respon-
siveness of the European administration to citizens through the lens of
Ombudsman inquiries. By exposing the main areas under investigation,
as well as the Ombudsman’s arguments and the responses of the institu-
tions in some detail (this is done, in particular, in Chaps. 4 and 5, and to a
lesser extent in Chap. 6), this account also aims to provide the reader with
an overview of the subject matters that the Ombudsman can investigate
and, consequently, of the areas that citizens, legal persons, and civil soci-
ety actors can complain to the Ombudsman. Related to this, citizens and
stakeholders will find out more about the Ombudsman process and the
available instruments that can be used with a view to achieving successful
outcomes. In the author’s view, perhaps with the exception of the better-
known transparency and access to documents cases, several further areas
of supervision are not—yet—widely known. The insufficient awareness
of the Ombudsman’s mandate has also to do with the fact that the lat-
ter cannot consider complaints at the domestic level, even when national
authorities are implementing EU law.
Second, by moving beyond the examination of the Ombudsman’s pres-
ent mandate and considering proposals for reform, the book effectively
9
See, for example, Reif (n 4).
10
On this point see Trevor Buck, Richard Kirkham and Brian Thompson, The Ombudsman
Enterprise and Administrative Justice (Ashgate 2011).
6 1 INTRODUCTION
claims that the need for further democratisation of this supranational edi-
fice means that it is necessary to advance proposals for reform which do
not exclusively cover the most prominent EU institutions. Where these
proposals should be based on? The book relies on the shortcomings or
limitations of the existing mandate, as they unravel throughout the sub-
sequent chapters. For example, in Chaps. 4 and 5 it will be shown that,
despite numerous achievements, the Ombudsman has not been as effec-
tive as he or she might have wished in specific sensitive complaints. Thus,
this book is not a comparative exercise across the member states11 in order
to find some common or minimum denominator. As already mentioned,
the particular features of the EU’s institutional and administrative design
(including multi-level governance and the proliferation of networks12),
let alone the absence of a traditional, tripartite, separation of powers,
would not leave much scope for such normative comparative exercise.
Simultaneously, nonetheless, it is accepted that the broader confines of
ombudsman institutions, despite their differentiations in terms of man-
date and function, set the outer limits of these proposals. To provide an
obvious example, it is clear that a public sector ombudsman office, includ-
ing when operating at the supranational level, should not be granted
enforceable powers as this would affect the very nature of the institution.
In this sense, where references to certain features of domestic similar bod-
ies are made in this book, these should be viewed as a valuable, but by no
means definitive (in terms of providing a threshold for comparison), exer-
cise in order to discuss possibilities or limitations. At the same time, for a
pragmatic reform to be advanced, the Union’s constitutional framework
cannot be ignored. It is necessary to take into account, for instance, the
principles of conferral and subsidiarity to assess to what extent they may
impose limits on a possible extension of the mandate.13
11
For such exercise see, for example, an interesting study in Gabriele Kucsko—Stadlmayer,
European Ombudsman-Institutions: A Comparative Legal Analysis Regarding the Multifaceted
Realisation of an Idea (Springer 2008).
12
See, for example, Harlow (n 8) 443; Bauer and Trondal (n 8). On the challenges
involved in shared management between the Commission and the national administrations
see also Paul Craig, EU administrative law (Oxford University Press 2012) 79, focusing on
the Common Agricultural Policy and the Structural Funds.
13
See Arts 5(2) and 5(3) TEU. See also Annual Report 2006, 16 and the discussion in
Chap. 6. Where references are made in this book to ‘Annual Reports’, these concern the
European Ombudsman’s Annual Reports.
1 INTRODUCTION 7
The book mainly relies on decisions produced by the office (what may
also be termed as ‘ombudsprudence’14), Annual Reports, press releases and
other publications available on the Ombudsman’s website. Where appro-
priate, the discussion is complemented with excerpts from interviews with
members of staff of the Ombudsman’s office,15 and other documents.16
Most of these interviews centred on the scope (and limits) of the mandate;
thus, they are mainly cited in Chap. 6.
Overview of the Chapters

To fulfil the above aims, the book is structured as follows. Chapter 2
explores the institutional and constitutional position of the European
Ombudsman and the scope of the existing, post-Lisbon mandate. The
discussion begins with the establishment of the office by the Maastricht
Treaty and its evolution. Particular reference is made to Article 228
TFEU, the Ombudsman’s Statute,17 as well as the Implementing
Provisions.18 This prompts further reflections on the Ombudsman’s
office own administrative set-up, which has the aim to increase effective-
ness and efficiency while making optimal use of the available resources.
Reference is also made to the relations between the Ombudsman and
other EU and national authorities, and the interaction between the
Ombudsman and citizens or civil society organisations. The chapter then
briefly presents two achievements of the office in the area of EU adminis-
trative law and governance, namely the inclusion in the Charter of a right
14
The term refers to the cases dealt with by ombudsman institutions; it is preferable to the
terms ‘case-law’ or ‘jurisprudence’ as public sector ombudsman institutions do not produce
legally binding decisions.
15
The interviews were conducted in February 2012; the ‘semi-structured interview’ was
used.
16
Most notably documents related to consultations organised by the Ombudsman before
the publication of the first ‘Strategy for the mandate’; these are briefly presented in the
beginning of Chap. 6.
17
Decision of the European Parliament on the regulations and general conditions govern-
ing the performance of the Ombudsman’s duties, adopted by Parliament on 9 March 1994
(OJ L 113, 4.5.1994, p. 15) and amended by its decisions of 14 March 2002 (OJ L 92,
9.4.2002, p. 13) and 18 June 2008 (OJ L 189, 17.7.2008, p. 25).
18
Decision of the European Ombudsman adopting Implementing Provisions, available at:
www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/resources/provisions.faces
8 1 INTRODUCTION
to good administration,19 and the drafting of the ECGAB.20 In addition,

the Ombudsman’s treatment by the Union judiciary is discussed. The
chapter concludes by pointing out that the European Ombudsman is a
distinct actor when compared to the Court, Parliament, but also to simi-
lar offices in the member states.
Chapter 3 explains the link between the role of the European
Ombudsman and democracy in the EU. It begins with an exploration
of the relationship between ombudsman offices and democracy in gen-
eral: indeed, ombudsman institutions are accountability mechanisms with
potential to increase citizens’ participation. The next section views the
European Ombudsman as part of the EU’s democratisation debate. By
way of introduction, it briefly revisits the discussion on the democratic
challenges of the EU, before focusing on the reasons behind the establish-
ment of the Ombudsman, and the presence of the right to complain to
the Ombudsman among the rights of European citizenship. Next, it dis-
cusses how the Ombudsman contributes to strengthening democracy. The
promotion of a broader understanding of European citizenship, as well as
the Ombudsman’s direct accessibility/interaction with citizens are men-
tioned. Importantly, the right to complain to the Ombudsman is open to
EU residents as well. Simultaneously, it is underlined that there are limits
to the nature and scope of the Ombudsman’s contribution to democracy,
and these should always be taken into consideration. Lastly, the chapter
examines the Ombudsman’s legitimacy, independence and own account-
ability, necessary conditions in order for the Ombudsman to perform her
democratising mission in the EU. On legitimacy, particular reference is
made to the Ombudsman’s election by Parliament, and to citizens’ views
via a Eurobarometer survey. On independence, the delicate relationship
with the European Parliament is examined.
The purpose of Chap. 4 is to shed light on the European Ombudsman’s
method. Thus, it examines in detail the work of the Ombudsman via an
analysis of cases primarily stemming from the Annual Reports 2008 to
2015—the latest published Annual Report. The Ombudsman’s super-
visory realm clearly extends to the totality of the EU administration,21
19
See Art 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
20
The latest version can be accessed at: www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/resources/code.
faces#/page/1
21
Post-Lisbon, the European Council, the European Central Bank (added to the list of
Article 13 TEU as ‘institutions’), and Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) matters
(in light of the abolition of the pillar structure) fall under the Ombudsman’s mandate.
1 INTRODUCTION 9
but not to the national authorities implementing EU law, and touches

upon a plethora of subject matters and areas. The broad definition of
maladministration endorsed by the first office-holder certainly contrib-
uted to this expansion in the scope of inquiries. As mentioned earlier, the
Ombudsman primarily relies on an approach based on law to ensure, as
much as possible, compliance. Simultaneously, it is consistently empha-
sised that maladministration is broader than illegality (as it includes,
e.g. the principles of good administration that go beyond the right to
good administration under the Charter). These subject matters and areas
include: the Commission’s role as the guardian of the Treaties, competi-
tion, institutional and policy matters, conflict of interest, human rights,
the awards of tenders and grants, and selection procedures (e.g. by the
European Personnel Selection Office). The signing of Memoranda of
Understanding with other EU bodies facilitates inter-institutional col-
laboration. In this context, the work of the Ombudsman with a view to
rendering the EU administration more accountable and responsive has
been significant. By doing so, the Ombudsman contributes towards the
embedding of principles of good administration and good governance,
and the strengthening of the EU rule of law. Nonetheless, there is an
additional angle to the Ombudsman’s efforts: when certain sensitive cases
reach the office, the EU institutions can be less willing to comply with the
Ombudsman’s well-reasoned and sound decisions. In this sense, Chap. 4
also unravels the limits of the present mandate via an exposition of a num-
ber of (non-exhaustive) cases.
Chapter 5 is a case-study on inquiries related to transparency and
access to documents. It begins with a brief introduction to the ‘world’
of EU transparency, an area no doubt closely associated with citizens’
participation, accountability and legitimacy. Of particular relevance to
the Ombudsman’s work has been the adoption of Regulation 1049
on access to documents.22 The impact of the European Ombudsman
is demonstrated through an exposition of proactive initiatives (which
include, but are not limited to high-profile own-initiative inquiries), as
well as through the analysis of complaints concerning transparency and
openness. Clearly, one of O’Reilly’s main priorities is to render the EU
administration more transparent. That being said, and in accordance
22
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30
May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission docu-
ments, OJ L 145.
10 1 INTRODUCTION
with the findings of the previous chapter, in certain cases with significant
constitutional implications the Ombudsman was not as effective as he
or she might have a nticipated, in order to safeguard the compliance of
the EU institutions with the EU rule of law and good governance. The
problem is aggravated even more in complaints against the intergovern-
mental institutions. Again, the limitations of the present mandate are
underlined.
Chapter 6, no doubt the lengthiest in this contribution, revisits the cur-
rent mandate and practice of the European Ombudsman, in line with the
above considerations. Thus, the proposals are based on the limitations of
the present mandate, the need to strengthen democracy while considering
the existing constitutional framework and occasionally the practice of other
ombudsman institutions—but only when such practice seems fitting within
the EU architecture. In this context, much of the discussion concerns a
reform of the present practice (including undertaking new initiatives),23
rather than an assignment of new competences to the Ombudsman. It is
acknowledged that a normative account is inevitably based on a number
of premises/preconditions which may not be universally accepted; in this
sense, the chapter may be seen as an exposition of the various dimensions of
the Ombudsman’s role, and an invitation for further reflection on the way
forward. The chapter touches upon several aspects of the Ombudsman’s
mandate, practice or institutional policy/presence: the available tools
that the Ombudsman possesses in order to ensure compliance; the ‘geo-
graphical scope’ of the mandate,24 including the Ombudsman’s inability
to supervise alleged instances of maladministration when national authori-
ties are implementing Union law; the distinction between matters politi-
cal and matters administrative, including the relations with Parliament’s
Committee on Petitions; the Ombudsman’s contribution to the new Title
on the ‘provisions on democratic principles’ (Articles 9–12 TEU); and
the possibility for the Ombudsman to become an EU institution under
Article 13 TEU—a question that the author leaves open. The book there-
fore does advance a certain empowerment of the Ombudsman, but having
due regard to the existing institutional reality. Inherent in this exercise is
23
A reform of the practice suggests that the current legal framework is sufficient and there-
fore the Ombudsman should merely consider an amendment of her or his existing strategy
vis-à-vis certain of the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies.
24
The term ‘geographical scope of the mandate’ stems from an Interview with the former
Secretary-General, 14.02.2012 (on file with the author).
1 INTRODUCTION 11
the tenet that the complex,25 multi-level26 and at times rather opaque field
of EU administration, reflecting a plethora of interests and preferences
expressed via extended debates at diverse fora, usually amounts to years of
negotiation and preparation before institutional change occurs.
The concluding Chap. 7 revisits some arguments made in previous
chapters and provides additional reflections on the role and evolution of
the European Ombudsman within the EU administration and, more gen-
erally, the EU’s political and legal framework. With regard to the propos-
als contained in Chap. 6, it also briefly examines the kind of institutional
support that would be required in order for these ideas to be taken for-
ward. The last part of that chapter, starting from the premise that any
possible reform of the Ombudsman’s mandate, however ambitious or
modest, could not by itself improve democracy in the EU, argues that
strengthening the position of the Ombudsman is an avenue that needs
to be combined with other plans and mechanisms in order to achieve
improvements in democratic terms. Such proposals may concern both the
national and the EU levels.
The EU’s Crises and the Ombudsman

Undeniably, the EU is presently facing a plethora of crises. Debates
on democracy and technocracy, austerity and solidarity, migration, EU
membership—among others—feature almost daily at various domes-
tic, European and international fora, and this is likely to persist in the
foreseeable future. The EU needs a strong level of legitimacy to survive
these challenges, and it is precisely its fading legitimacy that contributes
to accentuating these crises. It is not surprising, then, that many of the
proposals reflecting upon the future development of the Union centre,
yet again, on the question of democratisation and citizens’ participation.
25
See, in this regard, the contributions in Didier Georgakakis and Jay Rowell (eds) The
field of Eurocracy: Mapping EU actors and professionals (Palgrave 2013). The editors argue
(on p. 6) that complexity refers not only to institutional arrangements, but also to ‘to the
sociological and professional diversity of the different actors who “make Europe work” on a
permanent and daily basis’.
26
Compare an insightful ‘typology of administrative tasks’ in Herwig Hofmann, Gerard
Rowe, and Alexander Türk, Administrative law and policy of the European Union (Oxford
University Press 2011) 57–63, explaining that the ‘tasks of public administration in the EU
are multifaceted, polycentric, and joint, to be performed largely within a framework of mul-
tidimensional cooperation’ (on p. 57).
12 1 INTRODUCTION
And indeed, the ‘EU democracy’ question is an apposite lens to at least try
to explain some of these challenges and think about solutions. Another way
to put it would be that the crises are eventually deeply political, too. This
is not the place to ascertain the merits or prospects of these proposals. To
return to the scope of this contribution, there is no doubt that instru-
ments such as the Ombudsman, which bring citizens closer to the EU and
hold the EU administration to account, have a role to play in this discus-
sion. It would be naive to think that the Ombudsman’s office can provide
a ‘magical solution’ to these problems; however, the Ombudsman and
other, less prominent (or increasingly prominent, as will be demonstrated
throughout this book) EU actors, should be part of the debate. Thus, the
present account is based on a citizen-centred understanding of the EU,27
where the European Ombudsman’s mandate does matter and has perhaps
additional potential.
27
See Annual Report 2008, 10, where the—then—Ombudsman pointed out: ‘I often say
that the way an institution reacts to complaints is a key indicator of how citizen-centred it is’.
CHAPTER 2
The Institutional and Constitutional Position

of the European Ombudsman
Introduction
This chapter examines the institutional and constitutional position of the
European Ombudsman within the EU architecture. The Ombudsman’s
supervisory activity is primarily delineated by the Treaties, the Statute,
and the Implementing Provisions. Moreover, the Court of Justice of the
European Union has had the opportunity to clarify the nature and compe-
tences of the office, as well as the conditions under which the Ombudsman
may be subject to judicial review. Of particular relevance are also certain
achievements of the institution, most notably the drafting of a European
Code of Good Administrative Behaviour (ECGAB) and the inclusion in
the Charter of a right to good administration.
The chapter is structured as follows. First, some background is provided
to the establishment and evolution of the office. Following this, the post-
Lisbon competences of the European Ombudsman are presented.1 Next,
1
For further accounts discussing the European Ombudsman’s mandate post-Lisbon see,
for example, Ian Harden, ‘European Ombudsman’ in Steve Peers, Tamara Hervey, Jeff
Kenner and Angela Ward (eds) The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary
(Hart Publishing 2014) 1121; Alexandros Tsadiras, ‘The Ombudsman’ in Paul Craig EU
Administrative Law (Oxford 2012) 739. Among the pre-Lisbon accounts compare also
Katja Heede, European Ombudsman: Redress and Control at Union Level (Kluwer 2000);
Paul Magnette ‘Between parliamentary control and the rule of law: the political role of the
Ombudsman in the European Union’ (2003) 10 Journal of European Public Policy 677;
© The Author(s) 2018 13

N. Vogiatzis, The European Ombudsman and Good Administration
in the European Union, European Administrative Governance,
DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-57395-7_2
14 2 INSTITUTIONAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION
some reflections are provided on the relationship between the European

Ombudsman and other EU and national authorities, as well as the inter-
action between the Ombudsman and citizens/civil society organisations.
The Ombudsman’s office own administrative set-up is considered next.
Subsequent sections explore two well-known contributions of the office:
the creation of the ECGAB and the inclusion in the Charter of a right to
good administration. In addition, the case-law of the Court concerning
the Ombudsman is discussed.
Establishment and Evolution

The establishment of an Ombudsman further to the Maastricht Treaty
could be viewed as an achievement: after all, it was an idea that was being
discussed for 20 years.2 The creation of this institutional novelty for
the EU was fuelled by the prospects of an incomplete political Union,
whereby European citizenship would be established containing a num-
ber of rights, and also by discussions of ‘competence creep’, democratic
deficit, and the need to bring citizens closer to the EU.3 In this context,
it is arguable that the establishment of a European Ombudsman primar-
ily originated in the need to strengthen democracy, and not in a desire to
improve the administrative efficiency of the EU. This point is returned to
in the next chapter.
Still, the creation of an Ombudsman was not met with enthusiasm by
the European Parliament, owing to fears that its monopoly to defend citi-
zens’ rights would be seriously affected.4 The former Committee on the
Anne Peters ‘The European Ombudsman and the European Constitution’ (2005) 42
Common Market Law Review 697; Päivi Leino, ‘The wind is in the North: The first European
Ombudsman (1995–2003)’ (2004) 10 European Public Law 333; Nikos Vogiatzis,
‘Communicating the European Ombudsman’s Mandate: An Overview of the Annual
Reports’ (2014) 10 Journal of Contemporary European Research 105—focusing on the
Annual Reports between 1995 and 2010.
2
Jean-Pierre Jarry, The European Parliament and the establishment of a European
Ombudsman: Twenty years of debate 1974–1995 (European Parliamentary Research Service
2015).
3
On this latter point see, for example, Myrto Tsakatika, ‘Claims to legitimacy: The
European Commission between continuity and change’ (2005) 43 Journal of Common
Market Studies 193.
4
Weiqing Song and Vincent Della Sala, ‘Eurosceptics and Europhiles in accord: The cre-
ation of the European Ombudsman as an institutional isomorphism’ (2008) 36 Policy &
Politics 481, at 482.
2 INSTITUTIONAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION 15
Rules of Procedure and Petitions undeniably had its share of responsi-

bility for the delay in implementing the proposal for the creation of a
‘Community ombudsman’.5 During the pre-Maastricht period, the pro-
posal was mainly defended by Spain and Denmark, but for different rea-
sons. For the former, the EU’s legitimacy and proximity to citizens was
the objective; for the latter, the rationale was to control the EU executive,
and notably the Commission.6 It is beyond the purposes of this book to
offer an assessment of where exactly the European Ombudsman should be
placed among the various models of ombudsman that have been proposed
in the literature.7 It is generally accepted, however, that the Danish scheme
was influential in the design of the European Ombudsman. Because of
the broad definition of maladministration endorsed by the office (a point
discussed below), the European Ombudsman does examine complaints
raising human rights issues, despite not being a human rights ombudsman
as such.
The appointment of the first Ombudsman was anything but an easy pro-
cess. The task was assigned to the Committee on Petitions, which initially
shortlisted six candidates.8 The particularity of the process is explainable:
the Treaty did not provide further details concerning the appointment.
Eventually, further to a fresh round of nominations,9 Jacob Söderman, for-
merly the Finnish Ombudsman, was elected by Parliament as ‘Ombudsman
of the European Union’ in July 1995. He served until 2003, and was suc-
ceeded by Nikiforos Diamandouros, formerly the national ombudsman
5
See Jarry (n 2).
6
Song and Della Sala (n 4) 484.
7
On which see, generally, Leino (n 1) 338–339; Heede (n 1) 79–112; Gabriele Kucsko–
Stadlmayer, European Ombudsman-Institutions: A Comparative Legal Analysis Regarding
the Multifaceted Realisation of an Idea (Springer 2008); Mary Seneviratne, Ombudsmen:
Public services and administrative justice (Butterworths 2002) 12–16; Linda Reif, The
ombudsman, good governance and the international human rights system (Martinus Nijhoff
2004) 25–54. Alongside Leino, Diamandouros also observed that, historically, the establish-
ment of ombudsman institutions occurred further to three primary waves focusing on legal-
ity, maladministration and human rights, while (rightly) adding that often such categorisation
does not correspond to rigid and distinct models of ombudsman; see Nikiforos Diamandouros,
‘The principle of good administration in the recommendations of the European Ombudsman’
(2007) Speech at a seminar in Sofia, Bulgaria, available at: www.ombudsman.europa.eu/
speeches/en/2007-09-17.htm
8
Konstantinos Magliveras, ‘Best intentions but empty words: The European Ombudsman’
(1995) 20 European Law Review 401, at 408–409.
9
Jarry’s account (n 2, at 31–34) captures how the events unfolded.
of Greece. Further to Diamandouros’ decision to retire in October

2013, Emily O’Reilly is the current office-holder. Formerly the national
Ombudsman of Ireland, she was elected in July 2013 and re-elected in
December 2014 for a five-year term. Article 228 TFEU translated the ini-
tially established practice into a Treaty rule: it refers to the election (rather
than the appointment) of the Ombudsman by Parliament. This direct elec-
tion by the European Parliament takes place in plenary session.
As is the case with every newly established body, the first years of the
Ombudsman’s operation were effectively a quest to define the limits of
the mandate, and to assess how the reactions of some EU institutions
could be accommodated.10 The progressive shift of the Ombudsman
towards a more pertinent constitutional actor has not gone unnoticed.11
The Ombudsman’s team has expanded12 (although resources are always a
concern), the internal structure of the office has been re-designed, and the
communication policy and Internet presence have been areas of consider-
able investment. Importantly, the Ombudsman now fully uses the oppor-
tunity to undertake several initiatives (i.e. to act proactively) in order to
improve the quality of the EU administration. Many of these develop-
ments are explored in this and subsequent chapters. Suffice to note here
that the European Ombudsman is probably the most active forum of
extra-judicial, ‘administrative’ accountability13 in the EU.
The Legal Framework Concerning the Ombudsman’s

Operation and Powers
General Features
The mandate of the European Ombudsman is primarily defined by the
Treaty and the Statute,14 while the office has also adopted Implementing
10
See further on this point Vogiatzis (n 1) and the various accounts in The European
Ombudsman: Origins, Establishment, Evolution (Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities 2005).
11
Magnette (n 1); Peters (n 1).
12
That expansion was often mandated by practical reasons, e.g. the 2004 enlargement of
the Union.
13
The term ‘administrative accountability’ is by Mark Bovens, ‘Analysing and Assessing
Accountability: A Conceptual Framework’ (2007) 13 European Law Journal 447, at 456.
14
Decision of the European Parliament on the regulations and general conditions govern-
ing the performance of the Ombudsman’s duties, adopted by Parliament on 9 March 1994
Provisions, which have recently been revised to codify established prac-

tices.15 Articles 20(2) and 24 TFEU provide that the right to complain
to the Ombudsman is one of the rights of Union citizenship; that right
also features in the legally binding, post-Lisbon,16 Charter of Fundamental
rights.17
Article 228(1) TFEU is the starting point for the Ombudsman’s
mandate:
A European Ombudsman, elected by the European Parliament, shall be

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
Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, with the exception of the
Court of Justice of the European Union acting in its judicial role. He or she
shall examine such complaints and report on them.
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 mal-
administration, he shall refer the matter to the institution, body, office or
agency 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, body, office or agency 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.
Several points are worth underlining. The Ombudsman can receive

complaints from natural and legal persons. The nationality of a member
state—EU citizenship—is not relevant; suffice to demonstrate EU resi-
dence at the time of the instance of the alleged maladministration. Tsadiras
(OJ L 113, 4.5.1994, p. 15) and amended by its decisions of 14 March 2002 (OJ L 92,
9.4.2002, p. 13) and 18 June 2008 (OJ L 189, 17.7.2008, p. 25) (hereinafter the ‘Statute’).
15
Decision of the European Ombudsman adopting Implementing Provisions, available at:
www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/resources/provisions.faces (hereinafter the ‘Implementing
Provisions’).
16
See Art 6(1) TEU.
17
See Art 43 of the Charter.
notes that the right is open to irregular migrants as well.18 Conversely, EU

citizens not resident in the EU at the time of the alleged maladministra-
tion do have the right to contact the Ombudsman. If the complainant
is not entitled to access the Ombudsman (not being an EU citizen or
resident), the Ombudsman is willing to open an own-initiative inquiry
(see below). Such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis—but no
complaint is ‘rejected solely because the complainant is not an authorised
person’.19 For example, an own-initiative inquiry was launched in 2010,
when the Ombudsman received a complaint from a Norwegian citizen not
residing in the EU, concerning an application for a post at the European
Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories.20 The Ombudsman
also clarified that the office can open own-initiative inquiries regarding
alleged maladministration in the European Investment Bank’s lending
activities outside the EU, thereby contributing to its accountability.21
The vast majority of complaints stem from individual citizens.22 Such
figures verify the ‘citizen-centred’23 direction of the institution. As to
the language regime, the Ombudsman can receive complaints in any
of the official EU languages and responds accordingly.24 When submit-
ting the form, the complainant can opt for confidential treatment of her
or his case.25
It should be emphasised that the Ombudsman’s remit does not
extend to national authorities, even when they are implementing Union
law. If a complaint concerning a national authority is submitted to the
Ombudsman, the latter will probably transfer it to the competent national
ombudsman, the Commission, or the Petitions’ Committee of the
18
Tsadiras (n 1) 743, with reference to Case 972/24.10.96/FMO/DE/DT, where the
Ombudsman explained that what matters is the person’s physical presence in the territory of
the Union.
19
Annual Report 2004, 36.
20
Case OI/1/2010/(BEH)MMN. The Ombudsman found that the abovementioned
entity had committed maladministration as regards the content of the vacancy notice, but
had not exceeded its discretion (and therefore not discriminated against the complainant)
when eventually deciding not to recruit a third-country national (ibid., points 56–78).
21
22
According to Annual Report 2014 (on p. 17), 87% of inquiries closed by the Ombudsman
originated from individual citizens, while only 13% from companies, associations or other
legal entities. No such figures are available in the 2015 Annual Report.
23
24
See Art 13 of the Implementing Provisions.
25
Art 2(3) of the Statute.
European Parliament. The Ombudsman’s inability to deal with complaints

concerning the national level is mainly examined in Chap. 6. To be sure,
had it been otherwise, there would be a clear possibility of ‘jurisdictional’
disputes with national or regional ombudsmen. In this respect, it is use-
ful to remember that, in principle, the instances of centralised European
administration are the exception as EU law is mainly implemented and
enforced by the national authorities.26
Post-Lisbon, the Ombudsman scrutinises the activities of the Union’s
institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. Thus, institutions now included
in Article 13 TEU (the European Council and the European Central
Bank) can be held to account by the Ombudsman. This is no doubt a posi-
tive development. Also, given that the pillar structure has been abolished,
nothing prevents the Ombudsman from reviewing activities in Common
Foreign and Security Policy and Common Security and Defence Policy,
where the possibilities for judicial review are rather limited.27 With regard
to the proliferation of EU agencies, Chaps. 4 and 5 will illustrate the
Ombudsman’s considerable work therein.
The CJEU is excluded from the Ombudsman’s scrutiny when acting
‘in its judicial role’: its mission as the ultimate guardian of the EU rule of
law is therefore confirmed.28 Likewise, the Ombudsman cannot conduct
inquiries if legal proceedings have already been initiated or terminated.29
Further, the Ombudsman’s Statute makes clear that the Ombudsman
cannot ‘question the soundness of a court’s ruling’.30 These provisions
protect the coherence and consistency of EU law. Nonetheless, nothing
prevents the Ombudsman from dealing with complaints which raise new
legal issues, on which the Court did not have the opportunity to pro-
vide answers. From a procedural point of view, complainants should be
aware that contacting the Ombudsman does not ‘affect time-limits for
26
See, for example, Peters (n 1) 703.
27
That being said, the CJEU could occasionally interpret narrowly its jurisdictional limita-
tions in CFSP; see, for example, Case C-439/13 P, Elitaliana v Eulex Kosovo, EU:C:2015:753,
in particular para 49.
28
See Art 19 TEU.
29
Art 2(7) of the Statute. As Harden observes, this applies to any court—for example,
‘contractual proceedings in a national court bar the Ombudsman from investigating the
same facts’; see Ian Harden, ‘When Europeans complain: The work of the European
Ombudsman (2000) 3 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 199, at 230.
30
appeals in administrative or judicial proceedings’.31 Interestingly, the

Ombudsman does have the power to supervise the administrative activities
of the European Parliament.
The Ombudsman submits an Annual Report to the European
Parliament, which is presented at the Petitions’ Committee. The Reports
are available on the Ombudsman’s website and are essentially an overview
of the work of the preceding year. The Annual Reports should also be seen
as an opportunity for the Ombudsman to exercise pressure, to present her
work to European citizens and to justify her strategies and goals.32
The Maastricht Treaty was silent on the notion of maladministration.
In 1996, when asked by Parliament to define maladministration, Jacob
Söderman adopted a purposefully vague—and thus wide—approach when
stating that ‘maladministration occurs when a public body fails to act in
accordance with a rule or principle which is binding upon it’.33 The defini-
tion was subsequently endorsed by Parliament and has become the point
of reference when the Ombudsman explains to the EU institutions the
ambit of her mandate. The reason for that approach was that ‘the open
ended nature of the term is one of the things that [distinguish] the role of
the Ombudsman from that of a judge’.34 Consequently, the Ombudsman
frequently points out that the concept of maladministration is wider
than illegality; what might escape judicial review could still fall under the
Ombudsman’s scrutiny.35
Article 228 TFEU refers to the activities—not acts—of the EU insti-
tutions, bodies, offices and agencies. A good indicator here is Article
3 ECGAB, which explains the material scope of application of the
(non-binding) Code: ‘This Code contains the general principles of good
administration which apply to all relations of the institutions and their
administrations with the public, unless they are governed by specific provi-
sions’. For the relations between the EU institutions and their officials the
Staff Regulations36 apply.37 Despite the broad notion of maladministration
31
32
On the usefulness of Annual Reports see also the discussion in Chap. 4.
33
Annual Report 1997, 22–23.
34
Ibid.
35
See, for example, Annual Report 2008, 29.
36
See: eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1962R0031:2014
0101:EN:PDF
37
Art 3(2) ECGAB. The application of the Staff Regulations does not mean that the
Ombudsman is not competent to deal with a complaint stemming from an EU official.
endorsed by the Ombudsman, there are at least two types of activity38

that the Ombudsman will not interfere with, in addition to the judicial
function of the Court: review of the substance of legislation, including the
merits of legislative proposals submitted to the European Parliament39;
and decisions of a political nature.40
Further Discussion on Admissibility and Own-Initiative

Inquiries
The complainant does not need to demonstrate ‘a personal interest’ in
order to submit an admissible complaint. The fact that European citizens
benefit from ‘no locus standi requirements at all’,41 and can also raise issues
of public interest, distinguishes the Ombudsman from the Court, render-
ing the office a flexible and user-friendly mechanism.42 Before deciding on
whether or not a complaint is admissible, the Ombudsman verifies whether
it falls under her mandate: this is the first step.43 Complaints falling out-
side the mandate could include matters concerning national authorities
or the judicial activity of the Court. Under O’Reilly, the procedure for
complaints outside the mandate has been simplified. An initial assessment
will be made by the ‘Process management and inquiries Unit’ (formerly
the ‘Registry’), and generally an agent responsible for these complaints will
respond to the complainant via letter or email. The next step is to consider
whether the complaint, while falling inside the mandate, is still admissible.
The complaint is inadmissible if ‘the object is not identified’; the ‘alleged
facts are or have been the subject of legal proceedings’; the Court has
decided on that matter; the deadline to contact the Ombudsman, which is
‘within two years of the date on which the facts on which it is based came
38
But see also Ioannis Dimitrakopoulos, ‘Is an illegal Community act necessarily an
instance of maladministration, in the sense of Article 195 EC?’ (2009) 2 Review of European
Administrative Law 45, exploring additions to that ‘list’.
39
See Case 875/2011/JF, point 20.
40
See Annual Report 1995, 9. Petitions addressed to Parliament are included therein. The
challenges involved in categorising an activity as ‘political’ are considered in Chap. 6.
41
Ian Harden, ‘What Future for the Centralized Enforcement of Community Law?’
(2002) 55 Current Legal Problems 506. See also the Opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak
in Case C-331/05 P, Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. v Commission, EU:C:2007:191, para 59.
42
See, for example, Case 1017/2010/MMN, point 11: ‘[N]either the Treaty … nor the
Statute … establish as a condition for the admissibility of complaints that the complainant
should be directly concerned by the instance of alleged maladministration’.
43
See Art 3(1) of the Implementing Provisions.
to the attention of the person lodging the complaint’,44 has expired; ‘prior
administrative approaches’ and ‘internal remedies in staff cases’ have not
been exhausted.
The Implementing Provisions specify, first, that the determination as to
whether the complaint is within or outside the mandate and then admis-
sible is made by the Ombudsman and, second, that the Ombudsman may
request that additional information be provided by the complainant before
making such a decision.45 Thus, poorly drafted complaints may be found
inadmissible only after the Ombudsman’s efforts to actually crystallise the
nature and identify the author of the complaint.46
Alongside the examination of complaints, the European Ombudsman
has the strategic option to act independently and proactively by open-
ing an own-initiative inquiry. Those inquiries typically deal with systemic
problems within the EU administration. Indeed, the own-initiative inquiry
empowers the Ombudsman to fulfil a more system-improving mission,
to ‘control the administration in general, to enhance its accountability’.47
Until recently, the Ombudsman was of the view that this tool should
be used cautiously to safeguard its effectiveness. Own-initiative inquires
would be launched when several complaints on a similar matter had been
received. A departure from this approach was marked with the arrival of
O’Reilly as she announced that the office will use own-initiative inquiries
more strategically so as to render her work more relevant to the ‘major
concerns of ordinary European citizens and residents’.48 The appointment
of an own-initiative investigation coordinator,49 and the establishment of a
Unit focusing on systemic inquiries, evidence this new approach.
‘Grounds for Inquiries’

The Ombudsman conducts inquiries when he or she ‘finds grounds’: this
obviously implies a significant degree of discretion as to whether or not
an otherwise admissible complaint will be pursued further. Some of the
‘no grounds’ responses, on the part of the Ombudsman, entail a certain
44
45
Art 3(1) of the Implementing Provisions.
46
Annual Report 2011, 14–15.
47
Peters (n 1) 711.
48
Annual Report 2014, 7. In 2014, 17 own-initiative inquiries were opened, a significant
increase in comparison with previous years.
49
Ibid.
degree of pragmatism: in order to avoid raising unjustified expectations

to European citizens, if there is no ‘reasonable prospect that an inquiry
will lead to a useful result’, the Ombudsman will close the case on a ‘no
grounds’ basis.50 Another possibility for a ‘no grounds’ complaint is
when the matter has already been submitted to Parliament’s Committee
on Petitions, ‘unless new evidence is presented’.51 The discretion the
Ombudsman enjoys when deciding to start an investigation is confirmed
by the Implementing Provisions, too.52
It is to be wondered how broad the Ombudsman’s discretion should
be, especially when the complaint is well-substantiated. On the one hand,
it could be argued that this may be the other side of the coin of a gener-
ally flexible mechanism: as citizens may prefer the Ombudsman over the
Court relying on her or his flexibility, similarly the Ombudsman should be
empowered to be selective when she or he practically considers that she or
he cannot be of any meaningful assistance to complainants. On the other,
though, it could equally be claimed that the Ombudsman’s discretion in
otherwise admissible cases should generally be limited: as the Ombudsman
has also acknowledged, the broad scope of maladministration distinguishes
the extra-judicial mode of redress from the judicial process, which may
often come with substantial locus standi requirements for private appli-
cants. Thus, sometimes the Ombudsman may be citizens’ only possibility
for redress. In addition, the Ombudsman has consistently stated that in a
polity governed by the rule of law EU institutions should be answerable
to citizens, including when they exercise discretion. If the Ombudsman is
to lead by example, the above suggests that the Ombudsman’s discretion
should not be limitless, too.
Instruments for Redress

According to Article 228 TFEU, if an instance of maladministration is
established, the EU institution concerned should be contacted by the
Ombudsman in order to express its views within three months. In practice,
the Ombudsman will contact the institution before forming a preliminary
50
51
Ibid.
52
Art 3(3) of the Implementing Provisions provides that the Ombudsman ‘shall decide
whether there are grounds to inquire into an admissible complaint. If the Ombudsman con-
siders that there are no grounds to conduct an inquiry, the Ombudsman shall close the file
on the complaint’.
assessment on maladministration. If the Ombudsman identifies the mis-

conduct she tries to establish a dialogue with that institution. A widespread
tenet within the office is that the first choice for the Ombudsman is to find
a friendly and mutually acceptable solution.53 This is clearly unsurprising
for an ombudsman institution—flexible and fast redress is always prefer-
able. The Statute and the Implementing Provisions verify that if possible,
the friendly solution should aim to ‘eliminate the instance of maladmin-
istration and satisfy the complain[an]t’.54 If the attempt to find a friendly
solution proves unsuccessful, the Ombudsman possesses three legally non-
binding tools: critical remarks, draft recommendations and finally, the sub-
mission of a special report to the European Parliament. O’Reilly appears
to prefer the terms ‘solution’ (instead of ‘friendly solution’) and ‘recom-
mendation’ (instead of ‘draft recommendation’). It should be under-
lined that the Ombudsman benefits from considerable discretion when
selecting the appropriate non-binding instrument. Alongside the above,
‘further remarks’ or (as they have recently been renamed) ‘suggestions
for improvement’ may be issued where the Ombudsman considers that
the EU entity had not committed maladministration, but the quality of
administration could still be enhanced.
Critical remarks are used when the Ombudsman understands that ‘it is
no longer possible for the institution concerned to eliminate the instance
of maladministration’ or when the instance of maladministration ‘has no
general implications’.55 In addition, a critical remark can be issued if the
Ombudsman considers ‘that a draft recommendation would serve no use-
ful purpose’.56 It is also employed when the Ombudsman has addressed
her draft recommendations, the institution has not responded satisfacto-
rily but the Ombudsman does not consider that the case should be pur-
sued further. It follows that a critical remark of this sort may not always
be implemented by the institution concerned, leading the Ombudsman to
find alternative ways to express dissatisfaction or disappointment. In 2010,
for example, in light of the Commission’s ‘unsatisfactory replies’ to 10
out of 32 critical remarks, the Ombudsman noted that ‘there is still major
53
See, for instance, Annual Report 2010, 6: ‘It is always better if the Ombudsman does not
have to issue a critical remark or proceed to the stage of a draft recommendation in order to
secure improvements. It is much better if cases can be settled by the institution itself or if a
friendly solution can be accepted’.
54
Art 3(5) of the Statute and Art 5 of the Implementing Provisions.
55
56
Ibid.
work to be done, by the Ombudsman and the institutions themselves, in

persuading officials that a defensive approach to the Ombudsman repre-
sents a missed opportunity for their institution and risks damaging the
image of the Union’.57
The ‘draft recommendations’ are the next available instrument: the
Ombudsman produces a number of recommendations which address
the instance(s) of maladministration, anticipating that these could be
accepted. In principle, unlike critical remarks, the instances that require
this sort of action do have general implications and the instance of mal-
administration can be eliminated.58 Within three months, the institution
must respond with a ‘detailed opinion’,59 which can potentially end the
inquiry if the content of the Ombudsman’s recommendation is accepted
and the measures in order to implement the proposed draft are described
in detail in the response.
If the Ombudsman considers that the opinion of the institution is not
satisfactory, she has the faculty to submit a special report to the European
Parliament, describing the facts of the case and the proposed recommen-
dations.60 The special report is essentially the maximum that can be done:
it is a ‘last resort’ action. As is the case with critical remarks and draft rec-
ommendations, the special report is not legally binding, which means that
it is up to the European Parliament to decide if (and what type of) further
action is required. Since the establishment of the office and throughout
its years of operation, the Ombudsman has taken the view that special
reports should not be used frequently, but only for important matters and
when Parliament can meaningfully assist the Ombudsman.61 Despite this,
it is noteworthy that quite a few years have passed since the last special
report.62
Although the Ombudsman has taken useful steps (notably via the Annual
Reports) to explain when each one of these instruments is selected, these
explanations are rough guidelines. The flexibility of the Ombudsman and
57
58
Annual Report 2012, 34. Again, the Ombudsman enjoys discretion in the selection (or
not) of the draft recommendation.
59
60
61
See Annual Report 1997, 32.
62
Which was on Frontex and submitted in November 2013; see OI/5/2012/BEH-MHZ
and the discussion in Chap. 4.
the non-enforceability of her decisions practically mean that the choice of

the instrument might ultimately be decided on an ad hoc basis.
Broad Investigatory Powers

The European Ombudsman enjoys full independence and broad powers
in relation to access to documents and—generally —EU information. The
scope of the Ombudsman’s independence is a matter returned to in the
next chapter. As regards the wide investigatory powers, the Ombudsman
may require institutions, offices, agencies or member states’ authorities to
provide her with documents and information63; she may also ‘inspect rel-
evant documents’ and obtain copies64; she ‘may require officials or other
servants […] to give evidence’65; or ‘commission any studies or expert
reports that he or she considers relevant to the inquiry’.66 Concerning
access to confidential documents,67 the Ombudsman agrees ‘in advance
with the institution or body concerned the conditions for treatment of
classified information or documents and other information covered by
the obligation of professional secrecy’.68 Moreover, the Ombudsman can
request national authorities to provide (via the Permanent Representations)
any additional and necessary to her inquiries information. Such informa-
tion has to be provided, unless it is covered by laws on secrecy, in which
case access may be granted to the Ombudsman if the latter agrees not to
divulge it.69
It has been observed that the Ombudsman normally uses ‘horizontal’
(across institutions) rather than ‘vertical’ (across Member States’ authori-
ties) investigative powers and, what is more, the preference is for complaints
to be assessed on the basis of ‘factual data and written observations’, rather
63
Art 3 of the Statute and Art 4 of the Implementing Provisions.
64
65
See Art 3(2) of the Statute and Art 4(6) of the Implementing Provisions. From the
formulation of Art 3(2) of the Statute (‘must testify at the request of the Ombudsman’), it
follows that the process is mandatory, solely subject to the ‘relevant rules of the Staff
Regulations, notably their duty of professional secrecy’.
66
67
Sensitive documents in accordance with Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to
European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ L 145 (hereinafter
‘Regulation 1049’).
68
69
than via visits sur place, testimonies, expert studies and file inspections.70
In this respect, it is remembered that the Ombudsman’s resources are
not limitless. The former European Ombudsman (presumably comparing
the EU administration with other administrations) acknowledged that the
work of the Ombudsman’s office is aided considerably by the fact that
the knowledge of EU law and the overall quality of the staff working for
the EU institutions is very high.71
The complainant is procedurally protected in various ways. She has the
right to access her file or receive a copy, except for confidential docu-
ments72; also, as already mentioned, the complainant may request that
her or his complaint be dealt with confidentially.73 In addition, she may
request a review of the Ombudsman’s decision that the complaint falls
outside the mandate, that there are no grounds to open an inquiry, ‘and of
any finding in a decision closing an inquiry with the exception of a finding
of maladministration’.74
The Ombudsman was recently denied for the first time access to inspect
a document related to the implementation of the EU-US Terrorist Finance
Tracking Program.75 The complaint was against Europol, but effectively
the ‘veto’ was exercised by the US authorities, leaving the Ombudsman
with no other option than to close the case without a conclusion on the
question of possible maladministration.76 The Ombudsman expressed her
concerns to the European Parliament and the Commission, pointing out
that such obstacles prevent her from exercising her role in the democratic
scrutiny of the EU.77
70
Tsadiras (n 1) 750.
71
‘Table ronde: Le Médiateur européen: 10 ans d’activité’ in Symeon Karagiannis and Yves
Petit (eds) Le Médiateur européen: Bilan et perspectives (Bruylant 2007) 137, at 160 (com-
ments by Nikiforos Diamandouros).
72
73
74
Art 10 of the Implementing Provisions.
75
Case 1148/2013/TN.
76
Indeed, the Ombudsman acknowledged that ‘Europol did its utmost to convince the US
authorities of the necessity for the Ombudsman to inspect the document concerned’; ibid.,
point 9.
77
See the Ombudsman’s response to a letter by the Commission at: www.ombudsman.
europa.eu/en/cases/correspondence.faces/en/58891/html.bookmark
Transferring Complaints and Collaboration Within the ENO

When a complaint falls outside the mandate, the Ombudsman may (but
is not obliged to) advise the complainant to contact another authority,78
and the same range of discretion applies to her power to transfer the com-
plaint. Practically, the Ombudsman is generally keen to provide advice
for alternative means of redress, not least because such a stance raises the
profile of the institution.79
The European Ombudsman collaborates with national and regional
similar offices within the European Network of Ombudsmen (ENO),
the establishment of which should be viewed as one of the significant
achievements of the EU office. The Implementing Provisions mention
the Ombudsman’s faculty to collaborate with similar bodies in Member
States, ‘including through the European Network of Ombudsmen’.80
Although the modus operandi of the Network (including its challenges) is
extensively discussed in Chap. 6, suffice to note here that the emergence
of a network of this sort was probably mandated by the Ombudsman’s
lack of competence to deal with complaints against national authorities
concerning the implementation of Union law.
Inter-institutional Relations, Mission Statements,

and the Link with Citizens and Civil Society
Organisations
The Ombudsman’s inter-institutional relations will be further unrav-
elled in subsequent chapters. Some initial remarks can be made here. The
Ombudsman has established regular contacts with the EU institutions that
serve two inter-connected purposes: to familiarise the institutions with the
concept of good administration, and to facilitate respect of the Ombudsman’s
recommendations.81 However, it would be misleading to think that all institu-
tions respond to the Ombudsman’s critical findings in a homogenous fashion.
The exchanges between the Ombudsman and the Commission during the
first years of operation concerning infringement proceedings82 are indicative
78
79
See also the relevant discussion in Chap. 6.
80
Art 12 of the Implementing Provisions.
81
82
See—now—Art 258 TFEU.
of the underlying tensions that did occur.83 Although the relations with the
Commission have improved, the Council is often still reluctant to accept the
Ombudsman’s findings in constitutionally sensitive cases.84 The new institu-
tions under Article 13 TEU, the European Council and the European Central
Bank, cannot easily produce a high volume of complaints due to their limited
interaction with European citizens. The European Parliament is the institu-
tion that elects the Ombudsman, and therefore the challenge for the latter
is to pursue the same rigorous standard of scrutiny on complaints concern-
ing Parliament’s activities. While the above may be read as implying that the
Ombudsman’s everyday work is a world of tensions, the inter-institutional
reality is that in most cases the Ombudsman manages to collaborate reason-
ably well with the institutions under investigation.85 The second European
Ombudsman adopted a more reconciliatory language vis-à-vis the EU insti-
tutions, expressing disappointment in the form of ‘missed opportunities’,
rewarding compliance with the inclusion of a ‘star case exemplifying best prac-
tice’ in the Annual Reports, or stressing the need to find win-win solutions
that will enhance the legitimacy of the EU administration.86 As subsequent
chapters will show, this approach frequently produces tangible results—but
not always. After all, the desirable level of proximity (in light of non-enforce-
ability) or distance (in light of independence) with the administration is a
delicate exercise that possibly troubles every public sector ombudsman.
Perhaps more time is required to assess how O’Reilly will approach this
exercise. It is clear, though, that augmenting the visibility and impact of
the office are priorities. The increase in the use of own-initiative inqui-
ries is certainly an important step in this direction. This determination is
evidenced in the new Strategy for the mandate, which covers the period
2014–2019. While paying tribute to the achievements of her predeces-
sors, she also pointed out that ‘[m]y role and ambition now is to bring the
European Ombudsman on to the next level of influence, relevance, and
effectiveness’.87 It is interesting to note O’Reilly’s mission statement, too:
‘Our mission is to serve democracy by working with the institutions of the
83
On this point see Vogiatzis (n 1). Those exchanges concerned inter alia the Ombudsman’s
insistence to interpret Union law and/or the scope of the Commission’s discretion in
infringement proceedings.
84
See the discussion in Chaps. 4 and 5.
85
See further Tsadiras (n 1), in particular 761.
86
Vogiatzis (n 1) 120–121.
87
European Ombudsman, ‘Strategy of the European Ombudsman: Towards 2019’ (2014)
at 2 (contained in the Foreward).
European Union to create a more effective, accountable, transparent and

ethical administration’.88 The mission statement drafted by Diamandouros
in 2009 for the first ‘Strategy’ (2010–2014) read as follows: ‘The European
Ombudsman seeks fair outcomes to complaints against European Union
institutions, encourages transparency and promotes an administrative cul-
ture of service. He aims to build trust through dialogue between citizens
and the European Union and to foster the highest standards of behaviour in
the Union’s institutions’.89 A conceptual shift is discernible, in that O’Reilly
brings to the fore the link between the ombudsman and democracy, and
accentuates concepts and principles such as accountability and transparency.
The relationship between the Ombudsman and civil society organisa-
tions or individuals is constructive, if not marked by interdependence.
With regard to civil society, as Bonnor observed, these organisations,
beyond obtaining redress, are also interested in promoting general inter-
ests; simultaneously, every ombudsman is crucially assisted by civil society
in that she is provided with input.90 From the perspective of civil society
actors, accessing the Ombudsman is probably essential for pursuing their
aims, given the occasionally high threshold to standing before the Court
or the strained relations with the Commission that some of these actors
might have.91 The Ombudsman also collaborates with civil society in order
to disseminate information relevant to her priorities, frequently via the
joint organisation of seminars or conferences.
With regard to complainants whose expectations are sometimes less
realistic than those of NGOs more experienced in EU decision/policy-
making, disappointments may not always be avoided. However, citizens
who are generally familiar with the institution consider the Ombudsman
a friendly and accessible avenue defending their rights, but acknowledge
that the desirable result might not always be achieved. Again, public sec-
tor ombudsman institutions operate under the delicate balance between
low admissibility thresholds and non-enforceability. In this sense, when-
ever complainants can choose between the judicial and the extra-judicial
88
Ibid., 5.
89
European Ombudsman, ‘Strategy for the mandate’ (2010) at 6.
90
Peter Bonnor, ‘When EU civil society complains: civil society organisations and ombuds-
manship at the European level’ in Stijn Smismans (ed) Civil Society and Legitimate European
Governance (Edward Elgar 2006) 141. This ‘input’ is information concerning administrative
malfunctions, frequently of a systemic nature.
91
The European Ombudsman’s fruitful collaboration with NGOs particularly in the area
of transparency and access to documents is explored in Chap. 5.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
So saying, he strode to the door. Bagsby said not a word, but
clutched my arm. But as we descended the staircase, he muttered in
my ear as well as the chittering of his teeth would allow:—
“It is him—I am perfectly certain! Who on earth would have
believed this! O Lord Harry!”
CHAPTER III.
THE BARRICADES.
The streets were in a state of wild commotion. Every where we
encountered crowds of truculent working fellows, dressed in blouses
and armed with muskets, who were pressing towards the Boulevards.
Sometimes they passed us in hurried groups; at other times the way
was intercepted by a regular procession bearing torches, and singing
the war-hymn of Marseilles. Those who judge of the physical powers
of the French people by the specimens they usually encounter in the
streets of Paris, are certain to form an erroneous estimate. A more
powerful and athletic race than the workmen is scarcely to be found
in Europe; and it was not, I confess, without a certain sensation of
terror, that I found myself launched into the midst of this wild and
uncontrollable mob, whose furious gestures testified to their
excitement, and whose brawny arms were bared, and ready for the
work of slaughter.
Considering the immense military force which was known to be
stationed in and around Paris, it seemed to me quite miraculous that
no effective demonstration had been made. Possibly the troops might
be drawn up in some of the wider streets or squares, but hitherto we
had encountered none. Several bodies of the National Guard, it is
true, occasionally went by; but these did not seem to be considered
as part of the military force, nor did they take any active steps
towards the quelling of the disturbance. At times, however, the
sound of distant firing warned us that the struggle had begun.
Poor Bagsby clung to my arm in a perfect paroxysm of fear. I had
cautioned him, as we went out, on no account to open his lips, or to
make any remarks which might serve to betray his origin. The
creature was quite docile, and followed in the footsteps of Monsieur
Albert like a lamb. That mysterious personage strode boldly forward,
chuckling to himself as he went, and certainly exhibited a profound
knowledge of the topography of Paris. Once or twice we were stopped
and questioned; but a few cabalistic words from our leader solved all
difficulties, and we were allowed to proceed amidst general and
vociferous applause.
At length, as we approached the termination of a long and narrow
street, we heard a tremendous shouting, and the unmistakable
sounds of conflict.
“Here come the Municipal Guards!” cried M. Albert, quickly.
“These fellows fight like demons, and have no regard for the persons
of the people. Follow me, gentlemen, this way, and speedily, if you do
not wish to be sliced like blanc-mange!”
With these words the ouvrier dived into a dark lane, and we lost no
time in following his example. I had no idea whatever of our locality,
but it seemed evident that we were in one of the worst quarters of
Paris. Every lamp in the lane had been broken, so that we could form
no opinion of its character from vision. It was, however, ankle-deep
of mud—a circumstance by no means likely to prolong the existence
of my glazed boots. Altogether, I did not like the situation; and, had
it not been for the guarantee as to M. Albert’s respectability, implied
from his acquaintance with Monte-Christo, I think I should have
preferred trusting myself to the tender mercies of the Municipal
Guard. As for poor Bagsby, his teeth were going like castanets.
“You seem cold, sir,” said Albert, in a deep and husky voice, as we
reached a part of the lane apparently fenced in by dead walls. “This is
a wild night for a Manchester weaver to be wandering in the streets
of Paris!”
“O Lord! you know me, then?” groaned Bagsby, with a piteous
accent.
“Know you? ha, ha!” replied the other, with the laugh of the third
ruffian in a melodrama; “who does not know citizen Bagsby, the
delegate—Bagsby, the great champion of the League—Bagsby, the
millionnaire!”
“It’s not true, upon my soul!” cried Bagsby; “I am nothing of the
kind. I haven’t a hundred pounds in the world that I can properly call
my own.”
“The world wrongs you, then,” said Albert; “and, to say the truth,
you keep up the delusion by carrying so much bullion about you. I
should say, now, that the chain round your neck must be worth some
fifty louis.”
Bagsby made no reply, but clutched my arm with the grasp of a
cockatoo.
“This is a very dreary place,” continued Albert, in a tone that might
have emanated from a sepulchre. “Last winter, three men were
robbed and murdered in this very passage. There is a conduit to the
Seine below, and I saw the bodies next morning in the Morgue, with
their throats cut from ear to ear!”
From a slight interjectional sound, I concluded that Bagsby was
praying.
“These,” said the ouvrier, “are the walls of a slaughter-house: on
the other side is the shed where they ordinarily keep the guillotine.
Have you seen that implement yet, Mr Bagsby?”
“Mercy on us, no!” groaned the delegate. “Oh, Mr Albert, whoever
you are, do take us out of this place, or I am sure I shall lose my
reason! If you want my watch, say so at once, and, upon my word,
you are heartily welcome.”
“Harkye, sirrah,” said Monsieur Albert: “I have more than half a
mind to leave you here all night for your consummate impertinence.
I knew you from the very first to be a thorough poltroon; but I shall
find a proper means of chastising you. Come along, sir; we are past
the lane now, and at a place where your hands may be better
employed for the liberties of the people than your head ever was in
inventing task-work at home.”
We now emerged into an open court, lighted by a solitary lamp. It
was apparently deserted, but, on a low whistle from Monsieur Albert,
some twenty or thirty individuals in blouses rushed forth from the
doorways and surrounded us. I own I did not feel remarkably
comfortable at the moment; for although it was clear to me that our
guide had merely been amusing himself at the expense of Bagsby, the
apparition of his confederates was rather sudden and startling. As for
Bagsby, he evidently expected no better fate than an immediate
conduct to the block.
“You come late, mon capitaine,” said a bloused veteran, armed
with a mattock. “They have the start of us already in the Rue des
Petits Champs.”
“Never mind, grognard! we are early enough for the ball,” said M.
Albert. “Have you every thing ready as I desired?”
“All ready—spades, levers, pickaxes, and the rest.”
“Arms?”
“Enough to serve our purpose, and we shall soon have more. But
who are these with you?”
“Fraternisers—two bold Englishmen, who are ready to die for
freedom!”
“Vivent les Anglais, et à bas les tyrans!” shouted the blouses.
“This citizen,” continued Albert, indicating the unhappy Bagsby,
“is a Cobdenist and a delegate. He has sworn to remain at the
barricades until the last shot is fired, and to plant the red banner of
the emancipated people upon its summit. His soul is thirsting for
fraternity. Brothers! open to him your arms.”
Hereupon a regular scramble took place for the carcass of Mr
Hutton Bagsby. Never surely was so much love lavished upon any
human creature. Patriot after patriot bestowed on him the full-
flavoured hug of fraternity, and he emerged from their grasp very
much in the tattered condition of a scarecrow.
“Give the citizen delegate a blouse and a pickaxe,” quoth Albert,
“and then for the barricade. You have your orders—execute them. Up
with the pavement, down with the trees; fling over every omnibus
and cab that comes in your way, and fight to the last drop of your
blood for France and her freedom. Away!”
With a tremendous shout the patriots rushed off, hurrying Bagsby
along with them. The unfortunate man offered no resistance, but the
agony depicted on his face might have melted the heart of a
millstone.
Albert remained silent until the group were out of sight, and then
burst into a peal of laughter.
“That little man,” said he, “will gather some useful experiences to-
night that may last him as long as he lives. As for you, Mr
Dunshunner, whose name and person are well known to me, I
presume you have no ambition to engage in any such architectural
constructions?”
I modestly acknowledged my aversion to practical masonry.
“Well, then,” said the ouvrier, “I suppose you are perfectly
competent to take care of yourself. There will be good fun in the
streets, if you choose to run the risk of seeing it; at the same time
there is safety in stone walls. ’Gad, I think this will astonish plain
John! There’s nothing like it in his Lives of the Chancellors. I don’t
want, however, to see our friend the delegate absolutely sacrificed.
Will you do me the favour to inquire for him to-morrow at the
barricade down there? I will answer for it that he does not make his
escape before then; and now for Ledru Rollin!”
With these words, and a friendly nod, the eccentric artisan
departed, at a pace which showed how little his activity had been
impaired by years. Filled with painful and conflicting thoughts, I
followed the course of another street which led me to the Rue Rivoli.
Here I had a capital opportunity of witnessing the progress of the
revolution. The street was crowded with the people shouting, yelling,
and huzzaing; and a large body of the National Guard, drawn up
immediately in front of me, seemed to be in high favour. Indeed, I
was not surprised at this, on discovering that the officer in command
was no less a person than my illustrious friend De la Pailleterie. He
looked as warlike as a Lybian lion, though it was impossible to
comprehend what particular section of the community were the
objects of his sublime anger. Indeed, it was rather difficult to know
what the gentlemen in blouses wanted. Some were shouting for
reform, as if that were a tangible article which could be handed them
from a window; others demanded the abdication of ministers—rather
unreasonably I thought, since at that moment there was no vestige of
a ministry in France; whilst the most practical section of the mob
was clamorous for the head of Guizot. Presently the shakos and
bright bayonets of a large detachment of infantry were seen
approaching, amidst vehement cries of “Vive la Ligne!” They
marched up to the National Guard, who still maintained their ranks.
The leading officer looked puzzled.
“Who are these?” he said, pointing with his sword to the Guard.
“I have the honour to inform Monsieur,” said Monte-Christo,
stepping forward, “that these are the second legion of the National
Guard!”
“Vive la Garde Nationale!” cried the officer.
“Vive la Ligne!” reciprocated the Marquis.
Both gentlemen then saluted, and interchanged snuff-boxes,
amidst tremendous cheering from the populace.
“And who are these?” continued the officer, pointing to the blouses
on the pavement.
“These are the people,” replied Monte-Christo.
“They must disperse. My orders are peremptory,” said the regular.
“The National Guard will protect them. Monsieur, respect the
people!”
“They must disperse,” repeated the officer.
“They shall not,” replied Monte-Christo.
The moment was critical.
“In that case,” replied the officer, after a pause, “I shall best fulfil
my duty by wishing Monsieur a good evening.”
“You are a brave fellow!” cried the Marquis, sheathing his sabre;
and in a moment the warriors were locked in a brotherly embrace.
The effect was electric and instantaneous. “Let us all fraternise!”
was the cry; and regulars, nationals, and blouses, rushed into each
others’ arms. The union was complete. Jacob and Esau coalesced
without the formality of an explanation. Ammunition was handed
over by the troops without the slightest scruple, and in return many
bottles of vin ordinaire were produced for the refreshment of the
military. No man who witnessed that scene could have any doubt as
to the final result of the movement.
Presently, however, a smart fusillade was heard to the right. The
cry arose, “They are assassinating the people! to the barricades! to
the barricades!” and the whole multitude swept vehemently forward
towards the place of contest. Unfortunately, in my anxiety to behold
the rencontre in which my friend bore so distinguished a part, I had
pressed a little further forwards than was prudent, and I now found
myself in the midst of an infuriated gang of workmen, and urged
irresistibly onwards to the nearest barricade.
“Thou hast no arms, comrade!” cried a gigantic butcher, who
strode beside me armed with an enormous axe; “here—take this;”
and he thrust a sabre into my hand; “take this, and strike home for la
Patrie!”
I muttered my acknowledgments for the gift, and tried to look as
like a patriot as possible.
“Tête de Robespierre!” cried another. “This is better than paying
taxes! A bas la Garde Municipale! à bas tous les tyrans!”
“Tête de Brissot!” exclaimed I, in return, thinking it no unwise
plan to invoke the Manes of some of the earlier heroes. This was a
slight mistake.
“Quoi? Girondin?” cried the butcher, with a ferocious scowl.
“Non; corps de Marat!” I shouted.
“Bon! embrassez-moi donc, camarade!” said the butcher, and so
we reached the barricade.
Here the game was going on in earnest. The barricade had been
thrown up hastily and imperfectly, and a considerable body of the
Municipal Guard—who, by the way, behaved throughout with much
intrepidity—was attempting to dislodge the rioters. In fact, they had
almost succeeded. Some ten of the insurgents, who were perched
upon the top of the pile, had been shot down, and no one seemed
anxious to supply their place on that bad eminence. In vain my
friend the butcher waved his axe, and shouted “En avant!” A
considerable number of voices, indeed, took up the cry, but a
remarkable reluctance was exhibited in setting the salutary example.
A few minutes more, and the passage would have been cleared; when
all of a sudden, from the interior of a cabriolet, which formed a sort
of parapet to the embankment, emerged a ghastly figure, streaming
with gore, and grasping the drapeau rouge. I never was more
petrified in my life—there could be no doubt of the man—it was
Hutton Bagsby!
For a moment he stood gazing upon the tossing multitude beneath.
There was a brief pause, and even the soldiers, awed by his
intrepidity, forebore to fire. At last, however, they raised their
muskets; when, with a hoarse scream, Bagsby leaped from the
barricade, and alighted uninjured on the street. Had Mars descended
in person to lead the insurrection, he could not have done better.
“Ah, le brave Anglais! Ah, le député intrépide! A la rescousse!”
was the cry, and a torrent of human beings rushed headlong over the
barricade.
No power on earth could have resisted that terrific charge. The
Municipal Guards were scattered like chaff before the wind; some
were cut down, and others escaped under cover of the ranks of the
Nationals. Like the rest, I had leaped the embankment; but not being
anxious to distinguish myself in single combat, I paused at the spot
where Bagsby had fallen. There I found the illustrious delegate
stretched upon the ground, still grasping the glorious colours. I
stooped down and examined the body, but I could discover no
wound. The blood that stained his forehead was evidently not his
own.
I loosened his neckcloth to give him air, but still there were no
signs of animation. A crowd soon gathered around us—the victors
were returning from the combat.
“He will never fight more!” said the author of the Mysteries of
Paris, whom I now recognised among the combatants. “He has led us
on for the last time to victory! Alas for the adopted child of France!
Un vrai héros! Il est mort sur le champ de bataille! Messieurs, I
propose that we decree for our departed comrade the honours of a
public funeral!”
CHAPTER IV.
THE TUILLERIES.
“How do you feel yourself to-day, Mr Bagsby?” said I, as I entered
the apartment of that heroic individual on the following morning;
“you made a very close shave of it, I can tell you. Eugène Sue wanted
to have you stretched upon a shutter, and carried in procession as a
victim through all the streets of Paris.”
“Victim indeed!” replied Bagsby manipulating the small of his
back, “I’ve been quite enough victimised already. Hanged if I don’t
get that villain Albert impeached when I reach England, that’s all! I
worked among them with the pickaxe till my arms were nearly
broken, and the only thanks I got was to be shot at like a popinjay.”
“Nay, Mr Bagsby, you have covered yourself with glory. Every one
says that but for you the barricade would inevitably have been
carried.”
“They might have carried it to the infernal regions for aught that I
cared,” replied Bagsby. “Catch me fraternising again with any of
them; a disreputable set of scoundrels with never a shirt to their
back.”
“You forget, my dear sir,” said I: “Mr Cobden is of opinion that
they are the most affectionate and domesticated people on the face of
the earth.”
“Did Cobden say that?” cried Bagsby: “then he’s a greater humbug
than I took him to be, and that is saying not a little. He’ll never get
another testimonial out of me, I can tell you. But pray, how did I
come here?”
“Why, you were just about to be treated to a public funeral, when
very fortunately you exhibited some symptoms of resuscitation, and
a couple of hairy patriots carried you to my lodgings. Your exertions
had been too much for you. I must confess, Mr Bagsby, I had no idea
that you were so bloodthirsty a personage.”
“Me bloodthirsty!” cried Bagsby, “Lord bless you! I am like to faint
whenever I cut myself in shaving. Guns and swords are my perfect
abomination, and I don’t think I could bring myself to fire at a
sparrow.”
“Come, come! you do yourself injustice. I shall never forget the
brilliant manner in which you charged down the barricade.”
“All I can tell you is, that I was deucedly glad to hide myself in one
of the empty coaches. But when a bullet came splash through the
pannel within two inches of my ear, I found the place was getting too
hot to hold me, and scrambled out. I had covered myself with one of
their red rags by way of concealment, and I suppose I brought it out
with me. As to jumping down, you will allow it was full time to do
that, when fifty fellows were taking a deliberate aim with their guns.”
“You are too modest, Mr Bagsby; and, notwithstanding all your
disclaimers, you have gained a niche in history as a hero. But come;
this may be a busy day, and it is already late. Do you think you can
manage any breakfast?”
“I’ll try,” said Bagsby; and, to do him justice, he did.
Our meal concluded, I proposed a ramble, in order to ascertain the
progress of events, of which both of us were thoroughly ignorant.
Bagsby, however, was extremely adverse to leaving the house. He
had a strong impression that he would be again kidnapped, and
pressed into active service; in which case he positively affirmed that
he would incontinently give up the ghost.
“Can’t you stay comfortably here,” said he, “and let’s have a little
bottled porter? These foreign chaps can surely fight their own battles
without you or me; and that leads me to ask if you know the cause of
all this disturbance. Hanged if I understand any thing about it!”
“I believe it mainly proceeds from the King having forbidden some
of the deputies to dine together in public.”
“You don’t say so!” cried Bagsby: “what an old fool he must be!
Blowed if I wouldn’t have taken the chair in person, and sent them
twelve dozen of champagne to drink my health.”
“Kings, Mr Bagsby, are rarely endowed with a large proportion of
such sagacity as yours. But really we must go forth and look a little
about us. It is past mid-day, and I cannot hear any firing. You may
rely upon it that the contest has been settled in one way or another—
either the people have been appeased, or, what is more likely, the
troops have sided with them. We must endeavour to obtain some
information.”
“You may do as you like,” said Bagsby, “but my mind is made up.
I’m off for Havre this blessed afternoon.”
“My dear sir, you cannot. No passports can be obtained just now,
and the mob has taken up the railroads.”
“What an idiot I was ever to come here!” groaned Bagsby. “Mercy
on me! must I continue in this den of thieves, whether I will or no?”
“I am afraid there is no alternative. But you judge the Parisians too
hastily, Mr Bagsby. I perceive they have respected your watch.”
“Ay, but you heard what that chap said about the slaughter-house
lane. I declare he almost frightened me into fits. But where are you
going?”
“Out, to be sure. If you choose to remain—”
“Not I. Who knows but they may take a fancy to seek for me here,
and carry me away again! I won’t part with the only Englishman I
know in Paris, though I think it would be more sensible to remain
quietly where we are.”
We threw ourselves into the stream of people which was rapidly
setting in towards the Tuilleries. Great events seemed to have
happened, or at all events to be on the eve of completion. The troops
were nowhere to be seen. They had vanished from the city like magic.
“Bon jour, Citoyen Bagsby,” said a harsh voice, immediately
behind us. “I hear high accounts of your valour yesterday at the
barricades. Allow me to congratulate you on your first revolutionary
experiment.”
“I turned round, and encountered the sarcastic smile of M. Albert
the ouvrier. He was rather better dressed than on the previous
evening, and had a tricolored sash bound around his waist. With him
was a crowd of persons evidently in attendance.
“Should you like, Mr Bagsby, to enter the service of the Republic?
for such, I have the honour to inform you, France is now,” continued
the ouvrier. “We shall need a few practical heads—”
“Oh dear! I knew what it would all come to!” groaned Bagsby.
“Don’t misapprehend me—I mean heads to assist us in our new
commercial arrangements. Now, as free-trade has succeeded so
remarkably well in Britain, perhaps you would not object to
communicate some of your experiences to M. Crémieux, who is now
my colleague?”
“Your colleague, M. Albert?” said I.
“Exactly so. I have the honour to be one of the members of the
Provisional Government of France.”
“Am I in my senses or not?” muttered Bagsby. “Oh, sir, whoever
you are, do be a good fellow for once, and let me get home! I promise
you, I shall not say a word about this business on the other side of
the Channel.”
“Far be it from me to lay any restraint upon your freedom of
speech, Mr Bagsby. So, then, I conclude you refuse? Well, be it so.
After all, I daresay Crémieux will get on very well without you.”
“But pray, M. Albert—one word,” said I. “You mentioned a republic
—”
“I did. It has been established for an hour. Louis Philippe has
abdicated, and in all probability is by this time half a league beyond
the barrier. The Duchess of Orleans came down with her son to the
Chamber of Deputies, and I really believe there would have been a
regency; for the gallantry of France was moved, and Barrot was
determined on the point. Little Ledru Rollin, however, saved us from
half measures. Rollin is a clever fellow, with the soul of a
Robespierre; and, seeing how matters were likely to go, he quietly
slipped to the door, and admitted a select number of our friends
from the barricades. That put a stop to the talking. You have no idea
how quiet gentlemen become in the presence of a mob with loaded
muskets. Their hearts failed them; the deputies gradually withdrew,
and a republic was proclaimed by the sovereign will of the people. I
am just on my way to the Hotel de Ville, to assist in consolidating the
government.”
“Bon voyage, M. Albert!”
“Oh, we shall do it, sure enough! But here we are near the
Tuilleries. Perhaps, gentlemen, you would like to enjoy the
amusements which are going on yonder, and to drink prosperity to
the new Republic in a glass of Louis Philippe’s old Clos Vougeot. If
so, do not let me detain you. Adieu!” And, with a spasmodic twitch of
his nose, the eccentric ouvrier departed.
“Well! what things one does see abroad, to be sure!” said Bagsby:
“I recollect him quite well at the time of the Reform Bill—”
“Hush, my dear Bagsby!” said I, “This is not the moment nor the
place for any reminiscences of the kind.”
Certainly the aspect of what was going forward in front of the
Tuilleries was enough to drive all minor memories from the head of
any man. A huge bonfire was blazing in the midst of the square
opposite the Place du Carrousel, and several thousands of the
populace were dancing round it like demons. It was fed by the royal
carriages, the furniture of the staterooms, and every combustible
article which could in any way be identified with the fallen dynasty.
The windows of the palace were flung open, and hangings, curtains,
and tapestries of silk and golden tissue, were pitched into the square
amidst shouts of glee that would have broken the heart of an
upholsterer. It was the utter recklessness of destruction. Yet, with all
this, there was a certain appearance of honesty preserved. The people
might destroy to any amount they pleased, but they were not
permitted to appropriate. The man who smashed a mirror or
shattered a costly vase into flinders was a patriot,—he who helped
himself to an inkstand was denounced as an ignominious thief. I saw
one poor devil, whose famished appearance bore miserable
testimony to his poverty, arrested and searched; a pair of paste
buckles was found upon him, and he was immediately conducted to
the gardens, and shot by a couple of gentlemen who, five minutes
before, had deliberately slit some valuable pictures into ribbons!
Every moment the crowd was receiving accession from without, and
the bonfire materials from within. At last, amidst tremendous
acclamations, the throne itself was catapulted into the square, and
the last symbol of royalty reduced to a heap of ashes.
The whole scene was so extremely uninviting that I regretted
having come so far, and suggested to Bagsby the propriety of an
immediate retreat. This, however, was not so easy. Several of the
citizens who were now dancing democratic polkas round the embers,
had been very active partisans at the barricade on the evening before,
and, as ill-luck would have it, recognised their revivified champion.
“Trois mille rognons!” exclaimed my revolutionary friend the
butcher, “here’s the brave little Englishman that led us on so
gallantly against the Municipal Guard! How is it with thee, my fire-
eater, my stout swallower of bullets? Art thou sad that there is no
more work for thee to do? Cheer up, citizen! we shall be at the
frontiers before long; and then who knows but the Republic may
reward thee with the baton of a marshal of France!”
“Plus de maréchaux!” cried a truculent chiffonier, who was
truculently picking a marrow-bone with his knife. “Such fellows are
worth nothing except to betray the people. I waited to have a shot at
old Soult yesterday, but the rascal would not show face!”
“Never mind him, citizen,” said the butcher, “we all know Père
Pomme-de-terre. But thou lookest pale! Art thirsty? Come with me,
and I will show thee where old Macaire keeps his cellar. France will
not grudge a flask to so brave a patriot as thyself.”
“Ay, ay! to the cellar—to the cellar!” exclaimed some fifty voices.
“Silence, mes enfans!” cried the butcher, who evidently had
already reconnoitred the interior of the subterranean vaults. “Let us
do all things in order. As Citizen Lamartine remarked, let virtue go
hand in hand with liberty, and let us apply ourselves seriously to the
consummation of this great work. We have now an opportunity of
fraternising with the world. We see amongst us an Englishman who
last night devoted his tremendous energies to France. We thought he
had fallen, and were about to give him public honours. Let us not be
more unmindful of the living than the dead. Here he stands, and I
now propose that he be carried on the shoulders of the people to the
royal—peste!—I mean the republican cellar, and that we there drink
to the confusion of all rank, and the union of all nations in the bonds
of universal brotherhood!”
“Agreed! agreed!” shouted the mob; and for the second time
Bagsby underwent the ceremony of entire fraternisation. He was
then hoisted upon the shoulders of some half-dozen patriots,
notwithstanding a melancholy howl, by which he intended to express
disapprobation of the whole proceeding. I was pressed into the
service as interpreter, and took care to attribute his disclaimer solely
to an excess of modesty.
“Thou also wert at the barricade last night,” said the butcher.
“Thou, too, hast struck a blow for France. Come along. Let us cement
with wine the fraternity that originated in blood!”
So saying, he laid hold of my arm, and we all rushed towards the
Tuilleries. I would have given a trifle to have been lodged at that
moment in the filthiest tenement of the Cowcaddens; but any thing
like resistance was of course utterly out of the question. In we
thronged, a tumultuous rabble of men and women, through the
portal of the Kings of France, across the halls, and along the galleries,
all of them bearing already lamentable marks of violence, outrage,
and desecration. Here was a picture of Louis Philippe, a masterpiece
by Horace Vernet, literally riddled with balls; there a statue of some
prince, decapitated by the blow of a hammer; and in another place
the fragments of a magnificent vase, which had been the gift of an
emperor. Crowds of people were sitting or lying in the state
apartments, eating, drinking, smoking, and singing obscene ditties,
or wantonly but deliberately pursuing the work of dismemberment.
And but a few hours before, this had been the palace of the King of
the Barricades!
Down we went to the cellars, which by this time were tolerably
clear, as most of the previous visitors had preferred the plan of
enjoying the abstracted fluid in the upper and loftier apartments. But
such was not the view of Monsieur Destripes the butcher, or of his
friend Pomme-de-terre. These experienced bacchanals preferred
remaining at headquarters, on the principle that the séance ought to
be declared permanent. Bagsby, as the individual least competent to
enforce order, was called to the chair, and seated upon a kilderkin of
Bordeaux, with a spigot as the emblem of authority. Then began a
scene of brutal and undisguised revelry. Casks were tapped for a
single sample, and their contents allowed to run out in streams upon
the floor. Bottles were smashed in consequence of the exceeding
scarcity of cork-screws, and the finest vintage of the Côte d’Or and of
Champagne, were poured like water down throats hitherto
unconscious of any such generous beverage.
I need not dwell upon what followed—indeed I could not possibly
do justice to the eloquence of M. Pomme-de-terre, or the
accomplishments of several poissardes, who had accompanied us in
our expedition, and now favoured us with sundry erotic ditties,
popular in the Faubourg St Antoine. With these ladies Bagsby
seemed very popular: indeed, they had formed themselves into a sort
of body-guard around his person.
Sick of the whole scene, I availed myself of the first opportunity to
escape from that tainted atmosphere; and, after traversing most of
the state apartments, and several corridors, I found myself in a part
of the palace which had evidently been occupied by some of those
who were now fleeing as exiles towards a foreign land. The hand of
the spoiler also had been here, but he was gone. It was a miserable
thing to witness the desolation of these apartments. The bed
whereon a princess had lain the night before, was now tossed and
tumbled by some rude ruffian, the curtains were torn down, the
gardes-de-robe broken open, and a hundred articles of female
apparel and luxury were scattered carelessly upon the floor. The
setting sun of February gleamed through the broken windows, and
rendered the heartless work of spoliation more distinct and
apparent. I picked up one handkerchief, still wet, it might be with
tears, and on the corner of it was embroidered a royal cypher.
I, who was not an insurgent, almost felt that, in penetrating
through these rooms, I was doing violence to the sanctity of
misfortune. Where, on the coming night, might rest the head of her
who, a few hours before, had lain upon that pillow of down? For the
shelter of what obscure and stifling hut might she be forced to
exchange the noble ceiling of a palace? This much I had gathered,
that all the royal family had not succeeded in making their escape.
Some of the ladies had been seen, with no protectors by their side,
shrieking in the midst of the crowd; but the cry of woe was that day
too general to attract attention, and it seemed that the older chivalry
of France had passed away. Where was the husband at the hour
when the wife was struggling in that rout of terror?
I turned into a side passage, and opened another door. It was a
small room which apparently had escaped observation. Every thing
here bore token of the purity of feminine taste. The little bed was
untouched: there were flowers in the window, a breviary upon the
table, and a crucifix suspended on the wall. The poor young inmate
of this place had been also summoned from her sanctuary, never
more to enter it again. As I came in, a little bird in a cage raised a
loud twittering, and began to beat itself against the wires. The seed-
box was empty, and the last drop of water had been finished. In a
revolution such as this, it is the fate of favourites to be neglected.
The poor thing was perishing of hunger. I had no food to give it,
but I opened the cage and the window, and set it free. With a shrill
note of joy, it darted off to the trees, happier than its mistress, now
thrown upon the mercy of a rude and selfish world. I looked down
upon the scene beneath. The river was flowing tranquilly to the sea;
the first breezes of spring were moving through the trees, just
beginning to burgeon and expand; the sun was sinking amidst the
golden clouds tranquilly—no sign in heaven or earth betokened that
on that day a mighty monarchy had fallen. The roar of Paris was
hushed; the work of desolation was over; and on the morrow, its first
day would dawn upon the infant Republic.
“May Heaven shelter the unfortunate!” I exclaimed; “and may my
native land be long preserved from the visitation of a calamity like
this!”
CHAPTER V.
TWO PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENTS.
I awoke upon the morrow impressed with that strange sensation
which is so apt to occur after the first night’s repose in a new and
unfamiliar locality. I could not for some time remember where I was.
The events of the two last days beset me like the recollections of an
unhealthy dream, produced by the agency of opiates; and it was with
difficulty I could persuade myself that I had passed the night beneath
the roof of the famous Tuilleries.
“After all,” thought I, “the event may be an interesting, but it is by
no means an unusual one, in this transitory world of ours. Louis
XVI., Napoleon, Charles X., Louis Philippe, and Dunshunner, have
by turns occupied the palace, and none of them have had the good
fortune to leave it in perpetuity to their issue. Since abdication is the
order of the day, I shall even follow the example of my royal
predecessors, and bolt with as much expedition as possible; for, to
say the truth, I am getting tired of this turmoil, and I think, with Sir
Kenneth of Scotland, that the waters of the Clyde would sound
pleasant and grateful in mine ear.”
A very slight toilet sufficed for the occasion, and I sallied forth with
the full intention of making my immediate escape. This was not so
easy. I encountered no one in the corridors, but as I opened the door
of the Salle des Trophées, a din of many voices burst upon my ears. A
number of persons occupied the hall, apparently engaged in the
discussion of an extempore breakfast. To my infinite disgust, I
recognised my quondam acquaintances of the cellar.
“Aha! thou art still here then, citizen?” cried Monsieur Destripes,
who was inflicting huge gashes upon a ham, filched, probably, from
the royal buttery. “By my faith we thought thou had’st given us the
slip. Never mind—we are not likely to part soon; so sit thee down and
partake of our republican cheer.”
“I am afraid,” said I, “that business requires my presence
elsewhere.”
“Let it keep till it cool then,” replied the other. “Suffice it to say,
that no man quits this hall till the whole of us march out en masse.
Say I right, brother Pomme-de-terre?”
“Just so,” replied the chiffonier, tossing off his draught from an
ornament of Venetian glass. “We have built up a second barricade,
and have sworn never to surrender.”
“How is this, gentlemen?” said I.
“You must know, sir,” replied a meagre-looking personage, whom I
afterwards ascertained to be a barber, “that the liberty of the people
is not yet secure. Last night, when we were in the cellar, a large body
of the National Guard came, by orders of the Provisional
Government, and ejected the whole of our compatriots from the
upper stories of the Tuilleries. This we hold to be a clear infraction of
the charter, for all public buildings are declared to be the property of
the people. Fortunately we escaped their notice, but being
determined to reassert the rights of France, we have barricaded the
staircase which leads to this hall, and are resolved to maintain our
post.”
“Bravely spoken, old Saigne-du-nez!” cried the butcher; “and a
jollier company you won’t find any where. Here are ladies for society,
wine for the drinking, provisions to last us a week; and what would
you wish for more? Cent mille haches! I doubt if Louis Philippe is
enjoying himself half so much.”
“But really, gentlemen—”
“Sacre, no mutiny!” cried the butcher; “don’t we know that the
sovereign will of the people must be respected? There is thy friend
there, as happy as may be; go round and profit by his example.”
Sure enough I discovered poor Bagsby extended in a corner of the
hall. The orgies of last evening were sufficient to account for his
haggard countenance and blood-shot eyes, but hardly for the
multitudinous oaths which he ejaculated from time to time. Beside
him sat a bloated poissarde, who was evidently enamoured of his
person, and tended him with all that devotion which is the
characteristic of the gentler sex. As it was beyond the power of either
to hold any intelligible conversation, the lady contrived to supply its
place by a system of endearing pantomime. Sometimes she patted
Bagsby on the cheek, then chirupped as a girl might do when coaxing

Get The European Ombudsman and Good Administration in The European Union 1st Edition Nikos Vogiatzis (Auth.) Free All Chapters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Get The European Ombudsman and Good Administration in The European Union 1st Edition Nikos Vogiatzis (Auth.) Free All Chapters

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Get The European Ombudsman and Good Administration in The European Union 1st Edition Nikos Vogiatzis (Auth.) Free All Chapters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Download More ebooks [PDF]. Format PDF ebook download PDF KINDLE.

Full download ebooks at ebookmass.com

The European Ombudsman and Good

Download More ebooks from https://ebookmass.com

The Contestation of Expertise in the European Union 1st

Feed-in tariffs in the European Union 1st ed. Edition

The European Union And The Technology Shift 1st Edition

Private Health Insurance and the European Union 1st ed.

European Migration Law (Oxford European Union Law

India and the European Union in a Turbulent World 1st

Troikanomics: Austerity, Autonomy and Existential

The European Union and the Northern Ireland Peace

More information about this series at

European Administrative Governance

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017948169

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

Cover credit: Yann Arthus-Bertrand / Getty

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

A substantial part of this book is a widely revised or updated version of my

additional queries or requests at the time and more recently—especially

NV, Liverpool, 2017.

1 Introduction: The Office of the European Ombudsman

2 The Institutional and Constitutional Position of

3 The Link Between the Role of the European Ombudsman

4 Exploring the European Ombudsman’s Method: Analysis

5 A Case-Study: Inquiries on Transparency and Access

6 Revisiting the Mandate and Practice of the European

Introduction: The Office of the European

Aims of the Book

© The Author(s) 2018 1

have observed the Ombudsman’s potential to render EU governance more

a ­potentially very broad field of activities, clearly going beyond legality

binding decisions. Yet it is widely understood that extra-judicial redress

Overview of the Chapters

to good administration,19 and the drafting of the ECGAB.20 In addition,

but not to the national authorities implementing EU law, and touches

The EU’s Crises and the Ombudsman

The Institutional and Constitutional Position

© The Author(s) 2018 13

some reflections are provided on the relationship between the European

Establishment and Evolution

Rules of Procedure and Petitions undeniably had its share of responsi-

of Greece. Further to Diamandouros’ decision to retire in October

The Legal Framework Concerning the Ombudsman’s

Provisions, which have recently been revised to codify established prac-

A European Ombudsman, elected by the European Parliament, shall be

Several points are worth underlining. The Ombudsman can receive

notes that the right is open to irregular migrants as well.18 Conversely, EU

European Parliament. The Ombudsman’s inability to deal with complaints

appeals in administrative or judicial proceedings’.31 Interestingly, the

endorsed by the Ombudsman, there are at least two types of activity38

Further Discussion on Admissibility and Own-Initiative

‘Grounds for Inquiries’

degree of pragmatism: in order to avoid raising unjustified expectations

Instruments for Redress

assessment on maladministration. If the Ombudsman identifies the mis-

work to be done, by the Ombudsman and the institutions themselves, in

the non-enforceability of her decisions practically mean that the choice of

1 Introduction: The Office of the European Ombudsman

2 The Institutional and Constitutional Position of

3 The Link Between the Role of the European Ombudsman

4 Exploring the European Ombudsman’s Method: Analysis

5 A Case-Study: Inquiries on Transparency and Access

6 Revisiting the Mandate and Practice of the European

a potentially very broad field of activities, clearly going beyond legality