European

Decision in case 1439/2016/JN on the actions of the and its Representation in the prior to the EU referendum

Decision Case 1439/2016/JN - Opened on 06/12/2016 - Decision on 05/12/2016 - Institution concerned European Commission ( No maladministration found ) |

The case concerned the adequacy of the actions of the European Commission and its Representation in the United Kingdom prior to the 2016 referendum on EU membership. The Ombudsman examined the explanations provided by the Representation and found no maladministration.

The background to the complaint

1. On 11 August 2016, the complainant contacted the Representation of the European Commission in the United Kingdom (the “Representation”) to complain about its activities prior to the UK’s referendum on EU membership. She considered that the Representation had not done enough to adequately inform UK citizens about the . In her view, the Commission failed to exercise proper oversight of the policies and procedures employed by the Representation in the context of the referendum. On 18 September 2016, the complainant sent a reminder.

2. The Head of Representation replied on 20 September 2016 and apologised for not having replied earlier. She explained that the Commission shared the complainant’s regret at the result of the referendum, but that Commission Presidents Juncker and Barroso had decided not to interfere in any referendum campaign, in accordance with a longstanding convention that the Commission never interferes in national politics. The UK government and the ‘ Remain campaign’ had also explicitly requested that the Commission not intervene in the campaign. The Representation went on to outline the activities undertaken by the Commission and the Representation: o The Commission established a task force in Brussels dealing with the negotiation with the UK before the referendum and with the relations with the UK during the campaign. The task force was in close cooperation with the Representation to make factual information available to the public and to interested media outlets, among other activities. o The Commission provides information through its four offices in the UK, as well as operating the Europe Direct Information Centres to assist with enquiries. For many years, the

1 Representation has taken a robust approach to rebutting misleading media reports, including through the website www.euromyths.eu . It has held numerous events and debates on EU policies, as well as providing funds to others to do so. o The Representation explained that it had made information leaflets and brochures available in print and online for decades. However, the Commission has no right or mandate to force such material on those who do not ask for it. The Representation added that the UK Government’s decision to post information leaflets to all households was widely thought to have backfired and benefitted the Leave campaign . The Representation also pointed out that the applicable rules made it an offence for campaigning organisations to accept funds or other benefits-in-kind - including pro-EU literature - from the EU institutions or other non-UK donors. o The Representation supports new initiatives bringing students from different universities together to discuss Europe related issues. It also offers additional information to SMEs and to youth.

The inquiry

3. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complaint and identified the following allegation:

The Commission and its Representation in the UK failed to take appropriate action prior to the referendum on EU membership.

4. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman duly considered the information provided in the complaint. In particular, she carried out a thorough analysis of the correspondence that had taken place between the Representation and the complainant before the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

Allegation that the Commission and its Representation in the UK failed to take appropriate action prior to the EU referendum

Arguments made by the complainant

5. The complainant considers that the Representation’s reply does not address her grievances. She argues that the EU cannot claim to be part of the institutional life in the UK if it does not actively explain its role and functions. She considers that the Representation and its Head failed to follow best practice in terms of providing information on the EU and lacked the necessary experience to properly prepare the referendum. There should have been better oversight of the activities of the Representation by the European Commission and more assistance should be provided. The role and actions of the “Brussels Task Force” should be examined.

The Ombudsman's assessment

2 6. The Ombudsman’s mandate is to uncover instances of maladministration in the activities of the EU institutions and bodies. Given the Commission’s role in the EU institutional landscape, the Ombudsman finds it understandable that the Commission decided not to interfere with the UK referendum. According to the Representation’s reply, it has played an active role in informing UK citizens on the role and activities of the EU. As such, the Representation and the Commission appear to have fulfilled their roles in this regard and there is no evidence of any maladministration.

Conclusion

On the basis of the inquiry into this complaint, the Ombudsman closes it with the following conclusion [1] :

As regards the issues raised by the complainant relating to the provision of information prior to the EU referendum campaign, there is no maladministration by the European Commission or its Representation in the United Kingdom.

The complainant and the European Commission will be informed of this decision.

Strasbourg, 05/12/2016

Marta Hirsch- Ziembinska

Unit 1- Inquiries and ICT

[1] Information on the review procedure can be found on the Ombudsman’s website : http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/resources/otherdocument.faces/en/70669/html.bookmark

3