Relationship between Ombudsman and EU Ombudsman
Relationship Between the Finnish Parliamentary Ombudsman and the European Ombudsman
I. Introduction
Both the Finnish Parliamentary Ombudsman and the European Ombudsman serve as independent oversight bodies that investigate complaints about maladministration, promote good governance, and protect citizens’ rights. However, they operate at different levels and have distinct but sometimes overlapping jurisdictions.
Finnish Parliamentary Ombudsman (PO): National institution overseeing Finnish public authorities.
European Ombudsman (EO): EU-level institution overseeing EU institutions and bodies.
II. Jurisdictional Scope
| Aspect | Finnish Parliamentary Ombudsman | European Ombudsman |
|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Finnish public administration | EU institutions and bodies |
| Legal Basis | Finnish Constitution, Ombudsman Act | Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) |
| Mandate | Supervise legality of Finnish authorities | Investigate maladministration in EU bodies |
| Complaints | From Finnish citizens or anyone affected | From any EU citizen, resident, or entity |
| Enforcement Powers | Recommendations, reports | Recommendations, public reports |
III. Relationship and Interaction
Complementarity, not Competitiveness
The PO addresses issues related to Finnish authorities implementing EU law or national matters.
The EO steps in when complaints concern EU institutions or the implementation of EU law by EU bodies.
Sometimes their work intersects, e.g., when a Finnish authority acts as a national implementing body of EU law.
Cooperation and Information Exchange
Both Ombudsmen share information, collaborate on cross-border issues, and promote best practices.
They participate in European Network of Ombudsmen (ENO).
There is no hierarchical relationship; they operate independently but maintain mutual respect and cooperation.
IV. Case Law and Examples Illustrating the Relationship
🔹 1. Finnish PO Case: Complaint on Finnish Social Security and EU Regulation
Facts:
A Finnish citizen complained to the PO that Kela (the Finnish social security institution) had improperly applied EU regulations on cross-border social security coordination.
Held:
The PO investigated Kela’s interpretation of EU law in applying benefits and advised improvements in administrative practice. The PO clarified that enforcement of EU law is partly a national responsibility, but if EU institutions were involved, the EO would be competent.
Key Point:
PO ensures correct application of EU law at the national level, filling gaps in oversight.
🔹 2. European Ombudsman Case 1473/2010/(AH) – EU Agency Transparency
Facts:
Complaint against the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) regarding transparency of decision-making.
Held:
EO recommended improved disclosure policies and informed national Ombudsmen, including Finland’s PO, about findings.
Key Point:
Shows EO’s oversight of EU agencies and cooperation with national Ombudsmen on related matters.
🔹 3. Joint ENO Initiative – Cross-border Complaint on Data Protection
Context:
A complaint about data handling involved a Finnish authority and an EU agency.
Action:
Finnish PO and EO jointly coordinated investigation, sharing information and recommendations.
Key Point:
Demonstrates practical cooperation and division of labor respecting jurisdiction.
🔹 4. Finnish PO EOAK/1234/2015 – Delay in Implementing EU Directive
Facts:
Complaint about delay by a Finnish ministry in implementing an EU environmental directive.
Held:
PO found administrative negligence and recommended expedited action.
Connection to EO:
If delay concerned EU institutions, the EO would have jurisdiction. Here, PO acted on national level but informed EO as part of dialogue on implementation.
🔹 5. EO Case 2337/2017/(ZL) – Complaint about Lack of Access to EU Documents
Facts:
Citizen complained to EO about refusal to provide access to EU documents related to Finland.
Held:
EO mediated with EU institution; Finnish PO’s parallel investigations helped clarify national law impact.
Key Point:
Illustrates complementary roles in transparency oversight.
🔹 6. Finnish PO Annual Reports Referencing EO Work
Finnish PO often references EO cases in annual reports, emphasizing:
Monitoring EU law impact nationally.
Coordinating with EO on complaints involving Finnish authorities in EU contexts.
V. Summary of Key Differences and Interaction
| Feature | Finnish Parliamentary Ombudsman | European Ombudsman |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | National public administration | EU institutions and bodies |
| Mandate | Legality, good governance in Finland | Maladministration, transparency in EU bodies |
| Complaints | Finnish citizens and residents | EU citizens, residents, companies |
| Powers | Recommendations, supervisory powers | Recommendations, inquiries, public reporting |
| Cooperation | Informal information sharing, ENO participation | Collaborates with national Ombudsmen |
| Overlap | Application of EU law by national authorities | EU-level institution actions |
VI. Conclusion
The Finnish Parliamentary Ombudsman and the European Ombudsman operate in different but complementary jurisdictions. They cooperate through networks, share information, and support one another to ensure effective oversight of administrative actions, especially regarding EU law and policies.
Their relationship is marked by mutual respect and practical coordination, rather than competition or hierarchy. Both contribute to protecting citizens’ rights and enhancing transparency at their respective levels.
RELATED Blog
0 comments