The European Ombudsman

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT The European Ombudsman Eurobaromètre Spécial / Vague 74.3 TNS Opinion & Social Fieldwork: February 2011 Publication: April 2011 Special Eurobarometer / Wave TNS Opinion & Social 1

2 Special Eurobarometer Conducted by TNS Opinion & Social at the request of the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman TNS Opinion & Social Avenue Herrmann Debroux, Brussels Belgium

3 Table of contents INTRODUCTION... 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PERCEPTIONS OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND CITIZENS RIGHTS How informed people feel about the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Public interest in learning about the role of the Ombudsman THE ROLE AND PERFORMANCE OF THE EU ADMINISTRATION AREAS OF PRIORITY The responsibilities of the Ombudsman EU citizens rights CONCLUSION ANNEXES TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE TABLES 1

4 INTRODUCTION The European Ombudsman 1 investigates complaints about maladministration in the institutions and bodies of the European Union (EU). The institutions include, among others, the European Commission, the Council of the EU, and the European Parliament. The European Medicines Agency and the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions are examples of Union bodies that he can investigate. Only the Court of Justice, the Court of First Instance, and the Civil Service Tribunal acting in their judicial role do not fall within his jurisdiction. Complaints brought to the Ombudsman include cases of lack of transparency, administrative irregularity, unfairness, discrimination and abuse of power, and will often relate to alleged infringements of a citizen s rights as enshrined in EU law by the Charter of Fundamental Rights 2. A core purpose of the Charter and the Treaty of Lisbon, which made the Charter legally binding on EU institutions and the Member States when applying EU law, is to improve the connection between citizens and the EU. An important aim of this survey is therefore to assess how closely connected to the EU ordinary citizens feel themselves to be and to evaluate how well informed they are about their rights under the EU Charter. This is relevant to the Ombudsman, not only because citizens must of course know their rights if they are to understand when those rights have been infringed, but also because this kind of information promotes the Ombudsman s ability to work proactively with other EU institutions in placing European citizens at the centre of their work. Moreover, questioning Europeans on the performance of the EU administration should help to identify areas where there is room for improvement, and thus, to avoid future complaints from European citizens. As well as making citizens more aware of their rights, the Ombudsman also seeks to make citizens more aware that the Ombudsman is an available resource to which they can take their complaints, in addition to the national or regional ombudsmen that exist in individual member states. This survey will therefore also assess how well citizens understand the Ombudsman s role and ask what they think the Ombudsman should be focusing on in order to protect their rights. 1 Further information on the Ombudsman can be found at 2 Further information on the Charter of Fundamental Rights can be found at 2

5 In the course of this Eurobarometer survey, 26,836 European citizens were interviewed about the EU Ombudsman and citizens rights by the TNS Opinion & Social network between 9 th February and 8 th March 2011 in all 27 European Union Member States 3. The methodology used is that of surveys carried out for the Directorate-General for Communication of the European Parliament ( Research and Political Analysis Unit) 4. A technical note on the methodology for interviews conducted by the institutes within the TNS Opinion & Social network is annexed to this report. This note indicates the interview methods and the confidence intervals 5. The study will provide detailed analysis of the degree to which the Ombudsman and EU citizens rights are understood both across the EU and in individual Member States. It will also seek the respondents' assessment as to how the EU is performing in several key areas, and gather perceptions as to which areas the Ombudsman should focus on in the future. In addition, the survey provides a demographic analysis to help understand how some sections of European society view the question of citizens rights differently from others. The statistical breakdowns include: male/female, age range, the impact of education levels and household income, and a range of other socio-economic factors. ********** The Eurobarometer website can be consulted at the following address: We would like to take this opportunity to thank all the respondents throughout the European Union who gave their time to take part in this survey. Without their active participation, this survey would quite simply not have been possible. 3 Further information on the methodology used can be found in the technical note which specifies the interview methods as well as the intervals of confidence The results tables are included in the annex. It should be noted that the total of the percentages in the tables of this report may exceed 100% when the respondent can give several answers to the same question. 3

6 In this report, the countries are referred to by their official abbreviation: ABBREVIATIONS EU27 European Union 27 Member States Don t know BE BG CZ DE EE EL ES FR IE IT CY LT LV LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK Belgium Bulgaria Czech Republic Denmark Germany Estonia Greece Spain France Ireland Italy Republic of Cyprus Lithuania Latvia Luxembourg Hungary Malta The Netherlands Austria Poland Portugal Romania Slovenia Slovakia Finland Sweden United Kingdom 4

7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Only 14% of EU citizens consider themselves to be informed, either well or fairly well, about the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. 72% of people say they do not feel informed about the Charter. Roughly half of respondents in the EU would like to know more about what the Ombudsman does, while the other half expresses little interest in learning more about the Ombudsman s role. Around one in four say they do not know enough about the EU to make a judgement about its performance in terms of effectiveness, service-mindedness or transparency. The level of interest in the Ombudsman varies considerably between Member States, ranging from the 74% in Cyprus who express an interest to the 21% who do so in Slovakia. While satisfaction is generally quite low on all three measures, the EU is felt to perform less well on transparency than on effectiveness or service-mindedness. A majority of respondents (52%) think that the Ombudsman s most important function is to ensure that EU citizens know their rights and how to use them. The right to move and reside freely in the EU is seen as the most important citizen s right, with 48% regarding it as significant. Roughly one respondent in three thinks that the right to good administration is one of their most important rights. People who are informed about the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights tend to rate the EU s performance more highly than those who admit to knowing little about the Charter. Young respondents are more likely to think that the EU performs well on effectiveness, service-mindedness and transparency than older respondents. 5

8 1. PERCEPTIONS OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND CITIZENS RIGHTS 1.1 How informed people feel about the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - Most EU citizens feel that they are poorly informed about the EU Charter; a small minority have never even heard of it - A clear majority of EU citizens (72%) feels that they are not informed about the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. 36% say they are not very well informed and the same proportion say they are not at all informed 6. Another 13% reveal spontaneously that they have never heard of the Charter. By comparison, only 14% of EU respondents claim to be well informed on the subject, with 12% of EU respondents being fairly well informed and just 2% regarding themselves as being very well informed. Looking at the results from the individual Member States, it emerges that in just three countries: Luxembourg (25%), the Czech Republic (22%) and Italy (21%) that over 20% of respondents feel themselves to be informed 7. Just 6% of people in Latvia and 8% in France, Lithuania and Romania consider themselves to be informed. At least 70% of respondents say they are not informed 8 in 18 Member States, with particularly high proportions being observed in Spain (88%) and Finland (85%). While only 49% of respondents in Portugal view themselves as being not informed, a very high proportion of people there (39%) say they have never heard of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, as do 28% in Ireland and 27% in Greece. 6 QB1: How informed do you feel you are about the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU? Possible answers: very well informed; fairly well informed; not very well informed; not at all informed; have never heard of it (SPONTANEOUS). 7 Informed means either very well informed or fairly well informed. 8 Not informed means either not very well informed or not at all informed. 6

9 Not very well informed is the most frequently cited response in 15 Member States, and have never heard of it the commonest one in Portugal 9. Analysis of the socio-demographic data reveals some differences according to the categories of respondents. Minor gender variations are observed, with male respondents slightly more likely to regard themselves as informed (15%, compared with 11% for women). Slightly more women say they have never heard of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (15%, compared with 12% for men). But for both genders, the feeling of being informed is quite marginal, with 72% of men and 73% of women saying that they are not informed. The respondent s age also has almost no impact on his or her knowledge of the EU Charter. Only 12% of respondents in the 55+ group say they are informed, while 13% of those in the and groups, and 14% of those in the age bracket say this. 75% of those in the group say they are not informed, as do 74% in the category. However, the proportion falls to 72% for the 55+ category and to 69% for the age band. 9 Equal numbers of people in France (36%) who say they are not very well informed or not at all informed. 7

10 The individual s level of education is liable to slightly influence his or her level of awareness about the EU Charter. 18% of people who finished their education aged 20 or above say they are informed, but this falls to 11% for the group and still further to 8% for the 15-and-under category. 76% of people who finished their education aged say they are not informed, compared with 73% who finished their education aged 20 or over and 66% of people who are still studying. While only 70% of people who finished their education at 15 or under say they are not informed, a relatively high 20% of people in this category say they have never heard of the EU s Charter. In terms of occupation, managers are the most likely to say they are informed, with 19% describing themselves as such. 18% of self-employed people also claim to be informed but only 6% of house persons and 9% of unemployed people say the same. 18% of house persons say they have never heard of the EU s Charter, as do 16% of retired people whereas only 5% of managers say this. Less affluent respondents are more likely to say that they have never heard of the EU Charter. Only 11% of respondents who almost never have difficulties paying their bills have never heard of it, but this climbs to 15% among people who have difficulties paying their bills from time to time and again to 19% among those who have trouble most of the time. 14% of people who almost never have difficulty with their bills say they are informed, but only 9% who have difficulty most of the time say the same. People who position themselves low down on the social staircase 10 are more likely to declare spontaneously that they have never heard of the Charter. 18% of these respondents say this, compared with 13% who place themselves in the middle of the social staircase and 9% who place themselves high on the social staircase. 10 This variable is built by showing to the respondents a staircase with ten steps, asking them to position themselves on one of these steps. (step '1' corresponds to "the lowest level in the society"; step '10' corresponds to "the highest level in the society"). 8

11 QB1 How informed do you feel you are about the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU? Total 'Informed' Total 'Not informed' Have never heard of it (SP.) EU27 14% 72% 13% 1% Sex Male 15% 72% 12% 1% Female 11% 73% 15% 1% Age % 69% 16% 1% % 74% 12% 1% % 75% 11% 1% % 72% 15% 1% Education (End of) 15-8% 70% 20% 2% % 76% 12% 1% % 73% 8% 1% Still studying 17% 66% 15% 2% Respondent occupation scale Self-employed 18% 69% 12% 1% Managers 19% 75% 5% 1% Other white collars 16% 74% 9% 1% Manual workers 11% 75% 13% 1% House persons 6% 74% 18% 2% Unemployed 9% 75% 14% 2% Retired 11% 72% 16% 1% Students 17% 66% 15% 2% Difficulties paying bills Most of the time 9% 70% 19% 2% From time to time 13% 71% 15% 1% Almost never 14% 74% 11% 1% Self-positioning on the social staircase Low (1-4) 8% 73% 18% 1% Medium (5-6) 12% 74% 13% 1% High (7-10) 19% 71% 9% 1% 9

12 1.2 Public interest in learning about the role of the Ombudsman - Half of EU citizens express an interest in learning more about the Ombudsman s responsibilities, while the other half show little interest in the subject - EU citizens are divided on the question of whether they are interested in knowing more about the responsibilities of the EU Ombudsman 11, with roughly half saying they are interested (49%) and half saying they are not (48%) 12. Just 10% of people say that they are very interested, while 39% say they are somewhat interested. Conversely, 29% describe themselves as being not very interested, with 19% saying they are not at all interested. At individual country level, in only 11 Member States do at least half of the respondents say they are interested in learning more about the Ombudsman s role. The levels of interest are highest in Cyprus, where 74% of people are interested, in Luxembourg (64%) and Malta (62%). By contrast, only 21% of people in Slovakia, 30% in Latvia and 32% in Denmark declare any interest in the subject. The number of respondents saying they are not interested in what the Ombudsman does is highest in Slovakia (78%), Latvia (68%) and Denmark (67%). Very interested is the commonest response in just one Member State Cyprus (40%) while not very interested is the answer most often given in eight countries: Denmark (49%), Latvia (47%), Finland (45%), the Czech Republic (43%), Slovakia (40%), Hungary (36%), Poland (36%) and Bulgaria (32%). 11 QB4: How interested are you personally to get informed about the responsibilities of the European Ombudsman? Would you say you are? Possible answers: very interested; somewhat interested; not very interested; not at all interested. 12 Interested means very interested or somewhat interested. Not interested means not very interested or not at all interested. 10

13 Socio-demographic variations can be observed from one category to another: the data suggest that gender variations are negligible, and the contrast between respondents of different age groups is not very marked. However, while 53% of those in the group and 51% in the category say they are interested in learning more about the Ombudsman s role, only 46% of people in the and 55+ categories say the same. Respondents with a higher level of education are also more likely to show an interest in the Ombudsman s work. 59% of people who finished their education aged 20 or over say they are interested, but this falls to 48% among those who finished their education aged and again to 40% among those who left school at 15 or under. People who position themselves high up on the social staircase are more likely to describe themselves as being interested in receiving more information about the Ombudsman. 56% of people who are high on the staircase say they are interested, compared with 49% who place themselves in the middle and 42% who say they are low down on the staircase. 11

14 Respondents who regard themselves as being informed about the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights show a much greater interest in learning more about the Ombudsman than people who say they are not informed about the Charter. 69% of people who are informed about the Charter are interested in learning about the Ombudsman, as opposed to 49% of those who are poorly informed about the Charter. Finally, just 31% of those who answered spontaneously that they have never heard of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU are interested to be informed about the responsibilities of the European Ombudsman. QB4 How interested are you personally to get informed about the responsibilities of the European Ombudsman? Would you say you are? Total 'Interested' Total 'Not interested' EU27 49% 48% 3% Sex Male 51% 47% 2% Female 48% 49% 3% Age % 51% 3% % 47% 2% % 45% 2% % 51% 3% Education (End of) 15-40% 56% 4% % 49% 3% % 39% 2% Still studying 49% 48% 3% Self-positioning on the social staircase Low (1-4) 42% 54% 4% Medium (5-6) 49% 48% 3% High (7-10) 56% 43% 1% Informed about the Charter of Fundamental Rights Informed 69% 30% 1% Not informed 49% 49% 2% 12

15 2. THE ROLE AND PERFORMANCE OF THE EU ADMINISTRATION - Only a small minority of EU citizens think that the EU performs satisfactorily in terms of its effectiveness, with one in four saying they do not know how effective it is - The public s impression of the EU administration in terms of all three of the criteria under examination effectiveness, service-mindedness and transparency is that the level of performance is low 13. On all three counts, more people say that the performance is unsatisfactory than say that it is moderately satisfactory or satisfactory 14. On the question of the administration s effectiveness, more respondents (35%) think that the EU administration displays an unsatisfactory level of effectiveness than do those who record a moderate or high degree of satisfaction. Three in ten respondents regard the EU s performance as being moderately satisfactory (31%), while just 10% see it as being satisfactory. A quarter of people say they do not know how effective the EU administration is (24%). The average response on the 1 to 10 scale comes out at QB2: Based on what you know and using a scale from 1 to 10, how would you judge the performance of the EU administration in each of the following areas? '1' means that the EU administration s performance in a specific area is "not at all satisfactory" and '10' means that its performance is "very satisfactory". QB2_1: the effectiveness of the EU administration ; QB2_2: Service mindedness of the EU administration; QB2_3: Transparency of the EU administration. 14 Unsatisfactory refers to people answering from 1 to 4 on the scale; averagely satisfactory refers to those answering 5 or 6 (in the report, we will use the term moderately satisfactory instead); satisfactory refers to answers from 7 to

16 In terms of the EU administration s approach to service, EU respondents are more inclined to think that the EU performs unsatisfactorily (33%) than they are to think that it is moderately satisfactory (30%) or satisfactory (10%). A further 27% of people say they do not know how service-minded the EU administration is. The average score across the EU is 4.4. The EU is generally thought to perform less well on transparency than it does on effectiveness and service-mindedness. 42% of people are dissatisfied with the EU s approach to transparency, with 25% saying they are moderately satisfied and only 9% expressing satisfaction. 24% of people do not know how transparent the EU is. The average score across the EU is 4.0, the lowest among the three topics under examination. Analysis of the individual country data reveals a clear pattern as to which countries have the most favourable impression of the EU administration s performance. Respondents in Malta and Slovakia have the most positive impression of the EU on all three performance measures, and approval is also consistently high in Bulgaria and Romania. At the other end of the scale, respondents in Germany and the UK have a consistently poor impression of the EU administration s performance. Regarding the effectiveness of the EU administration, a relative majority of respondents answer that they don t know how effective the EU is in 12 countries. The average score is highest in Malta (5.6), Bulgaria (5.4) and Slovakia (5.4), and lowest in the UK (3.7), Germany (3.9) and Sweden (3.9). The detailed results are as follows: relatively high numbers of people in Malta (26%), Slovakia (26%) and Romania (22%) regard the EU administration s performance as satisfactory in terms of effectiveness, whereas only 4% of UK respondents and 6% of those in France and Sweden say the same. 48% of respondents in Belgium say the EU s performance is moderately satisfactory, as do 45% of people in the Netherlands and 43% of those in Luxembourg. However, 20% of respondents in Romania consider the EU s performance to be moderately satisfactory, as do 21% in Bulgaria and 22% in the UK. A high proportion of respondents in Sweden (55%), Denmark (49%) and Austria (48%) find the EU level of effectiveness to be unsatisfactory, although just 17% of people in Bulgaria and Malta agree. Large proportions of people in Bulgaria (47%) and Ireland (42%) say they do not know how effective the EU is. 14

17 When analysing the impressions of the EU s service-mindedness at individual country level, don t know emerges as the most popular response in 17 Member States. The average score is highest in Malta (5.5) and Slovakia (5.5), and lowest in the UK (3.7) and Germany (3.9). Relatively high proportions of respondents in Slovakia (26%), Romania (22%) and Malta (20%) consider the EU administration s performance to be satisfactory in terms of its attention to service, whereas only 5% of people in the UK and 6% of those in France and Germany share this view. 43% of respondents in Belgium say the EU s performance is moderately satisfactory, as do 40% of those in Finland and 39% of those in the Netherlands; only 20% of people in Bulgaria and the UK view the EU s performance as moderately satisfactory. In Austria (47%), Germany (44%) and Denmark (43%), a significant proportion of respondents finds the EU level of effectiveness to be unsatisfactory, whereas only 16% of people in Bulgaria and 17% in Malta agree with this. A high proportion of people in Bulgaria (48%) and Ireland (45%) say they do not know how service-minded the EU is. In terms of transparency, don t know is again by far the most popular response in 17 Member States. The average score is highest in Slovakia (5.4) and Romania (5.3) and lowest in Denmark (3.1), Germany (3.2) and the UK (3.2). Relatively large numbers of respondents in Slovakia (24%) and Romania (21%) regard the EU s performance on transparency to be satisfactory, but only 3% of people in Denmark and 4% of people in the UK consider it to be so. 40% of respondents in Finland and 36% in Italy find the EU s performance to be moderately satisfactory, but only 14% of people in the UK and 18% in Denmark and Germany describe it in those terms. 64% of people in Denmark and 62% in Austria say the EU s performance is unsatisfactory, although only 20% of those in Bulgaria and 23% of those in Romania are similarly critical. As before, a high proportion of people in Bulgaria (46%) and Ireland (44%) say they do not know how transparent the EU is. 15

18 The socio-demographic data reveal that men are somewhat more inclined to express dissatisfaction with the EU s performance; for example, on the question of effectiveness, 39% of men say performance is unsatisfactory on this front, compared with 31% for women. Women are generally more likely to say they don t know how well the EU administration is performing: 28% say this on the question of effectiveness, compared with 20% for men, and 31% of women say this on the issue of service-mindedness, compared with 22% for men. 16

19 Younger respondents are more inclined than older respondents to think the EU administration is performing satisfactorily. In terms of effectiveness, for example, 15% of people in the age group say the EU s performance is satisfactory, but this falls to just 8% among respondents aged 55 and over. Meanwhile, 39% of those in the age group say the EU s performance is unsatisfactory, whereas only 25% of year-olds say the same. The results are much the same when looking at servicemindedness and transparency. A trend also emerges in terms of how respondents position themselves on the social staircase, with those describing themselves as high on the staircase more likely to regard the EU s performance as satisfactory than those who place themselves low down or in the middle. When it comes to the EU s effectiveness, for example, 16% of people who view themselves as high on the social staircase assess the administration s performance as satisfactory, as opposed to 9% of those who place themselves in the middle and 7% of those who consider themselves to be low. Respondents who regard themselves as being informed about the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights tend to look much more favourably on the EU performance than those who say they do not know about the Charter. For example, 24% of people who are informed say the EU performs satisfactorily in terms of being effective, whereas just 8% who say they are not well informed say the same, and these results are more or less repeated for the other two criteria. Overall, the socio-demographic data bear out the earlier findings that the general impression of the EU s performance is low, and that the EU is judged to be faring slightly worse on transparency than it is on effectiveness and service-mindedness. Yet it is clear that individuals with access to better information about the EU tend to have a slightly more favourable view of how the EU is doing. 17

20 18

21 3. AREAS OF PRIORITY 3.1 The responsibilities of the Ombudsman - A majority of respondents think that the Ombudsman s most important function is keeping EU citizens properly informed about their rights - Ensuring that EU citizens know about their rights and how to make use of them is widely seen as the Ombudsman s most important responsibility 15, with 52% of respondents citing this as one of the Ombudsman s key functions. 34% of respondents think that it is important for the EU Ombudsman to work with ombudsmen in the different EU Member States to ensure that citizens complaints about the EU are resolved effectively, while 30% see it as the Ombudsman s job to promote the right of EU citizens to good administration by the EU institutions. Seeking redress for complaints in cases of maladministration is regarded as important by 27% of respondents, with 22% thinking a priority for the Ombudsman should be promoting the right of EU citizens to gain access to EU documents. 19% of people say they want the Ombudsman to focus on strengthening the service-mindedness of the EU, and 11% say they do not know what the most important aspects of the Ombudsman s role should be. 15 QB3: According to you, which of the following responsibilities of the European Ombudsman are the most important? Promotes the right of EU citizens to good administration by the EU institutions; promotes the right of EU citizens to gain access to documents of the EU institutions; seeks to strengthen the service-mindedness of the EU administration; ensures that EU citizens know about their rights and how to make use of them; seeks redress for complainants in cases of maladministration; works with ombudsmen in the Member States to ensure that citizens' complaints about the EU are resolved effectively; other (SPONTANEOUS). MAXIMUM 3 ANSWERS 19

22 Ensuring that EU citizens know about their rights and how to make use of them is the first answer given in all Member States, except for the Netherlands, where working with ombudsmen in Member States to ensure that citizens complaints about the EU are resolved effectively is the commonest response; and Ireland, where promoting the right of EU citizens to good administration by the EU institutions is deemed to be equally as important as ensuring that EU citizens know about their rights. Ensuring that EU citizens know about their rights and how to make use of them is regarded as a particularly important responsibility in Denmark and Sweden, where 69% of people choose this answer, though it is not considered quite so essential in Romania (38%), Ireland (43%) and Portugal (43%). Working with ombudsmen in Member States to ensure that citizens complaints about the EU are resolved effectively is once again thought to be a core function of the Ombudsman in Denmark (61%), Sweden (59%), and the Netherlands (53%, first rank), whereas relatively few respondents in Romania (16%) and Lithuania (22%) attach this level of importance to it. Respondents in Cyprus (49%), Sweden (43%) and Ireland (43%, first response given, equally with Ensuring that EU citizens know about their rights and how to make use of them ) regard promoting the right of EU citizens to good administration by the EU institutions as one of the Ombudsman s most important responsibilities, but only 18% of those in Poland and 20% of those in Lithuania agree. Seeking redress for complaints in cases of maladministration is considered very important by 52% of people in Finland and 48% of those in Cyprus; by contrast, only 12% of people in Estonia and 16% in Sweden see this area as a priority. People in Sweden (38%) and Denmark (36%) regard promoting the right of EU citizens to gain access to EU documents as a core responsibility, whereas only 13% of those in Lithuania and 14% of those in the Czech Republic, Latvia and Poland see it this way. Focusing on strengthening the service-mindedness of the EU is a top priority according to 36% of people in Austria and 31% of people in Greece, but it is not seen as so much of a priority in Latvia (11%), Luxembourg (13%) or the UK (13%). Relatively high numbers of people say they do not know what the Ombudsman s most important responsibilities should be in Romania (26%), Estonia (22%) and Lithuania (22%). 20

23 21

24 The socio-demographic data suggests only slight gender variations, the most marked difference being between the 32% of men and 28% of women who think that promoting the right of EU citizens to good administration by the EU institutions should be one of the Ombudsman s most important jobs. Age variations are also fairly negligible. Those in the and age brackets are slightly more likely to see all six of the duties under discussion as important parts of the Ombudsman s role than the youngest and oldest groups. The respondent s level of education has slightly more bearing on his or her views of what the Ombudsman should prioritise. 42% of those who finished their education aged 20 or over say the Ombudsman should be working with ombudsmen in member states to ensure that citizens complaints about the EU are resolved effectively, but this drops to 34% of those who finished their education aged 16-19, and again to 28% among those who left school at 15 or under. This pattern is generally repeated for the other functions of the Ombudsman under discussion. All of the Ombudsman s responsibilities under discussion here are cited more frequently as areas of priority by people who are interested in becoming better informed about the Ombudsman than those who are not interested. For example, 59% of people who are interested in becoming better informed say that ensuring that EU citizens know about their rights and how to make use of them should be one of the Ombudsman s key functions, as opposed to 47% of people who are not interested in becoming better informed. Respondents who are not interested (16%) are much more likely to say they don t know what the Ombudsman s priorities should be than those who are interested (4%). 22

25 3.2 EU citizens rights - The right to good administration by the EU institutions is the second most important European citizens' right according to the survey respondents - The right to move and reside freely in the EU is considered important by the highest number of respondents (48%), with the right to good administration by EU institutions in second place (33%) and the right to submit complaints to the European Ombudsman (32%) emerging as the third most important citizen s right 16 in the eyes of EU respondents. 21% of people regard the right to have access to documents of the EU institutions as one of their most important rights, with the same number citing the right to vote in European elections if you move to another member state. 20% of people view the right to petition the European Parliament as one of their most significant rights, while the right to propose legislation through a citizens' initiative is valued as an important right by 19% of respondents. 9% of people say they do not know which of their rights as European citizens are the most important. The right to move and reside freely in the EU is seen as the most important in 21 Member States. The right to good administration by EU institutions is seen as the most important in three countries (Greece, Spain and Italy), while the right to submit complaints to the European Ombudsman is considered the most important in the remaining three (the Czech Republic, Malta and Portugal). 16 QB5: From the following European citizens' rights, which are the most important to you personally? MAX. 3 ANSWERS from: the right to good administration by EU institutions; the right to submit complaints to the European Ombudsman; the right to have access to documents of the EU institutions; the right to petition the European Parliament; the right to move and reside freely in the EU; the right to propose legislation through a citizens' initiative; the right to vote in European elections if you move to another Member State; other (SPONTANEOUS) 23

26 The right to move and reside freely in the EU is seen as being particularly important in Finland (74%) and Sweden (73%), although respondents in Italy (28%) and Spain (31%) see this as less of a priority. The right to submit complaints to the European Ombudsman is most prized in Greece (46%) and Slovenia (44%), but only 16% of people in Lithuania and 21% of those in Latvia see this as an important right. 32% of people in Denmark and Sweden believe that the right to have access to the documents of the EU institutions is an important right, while only 13% of those in Spain and Lithuania see it as such. An unusually high percentage of people in Cyprus (53%), followed by 36% of those in Greece, think that the right to petition the European Parliament is one of their most important rights, but respondents in Bulgaria (6%) and Denmark (8%) do not rate this right so highly. 31% of people in Austria and 30% of those in Cyprus view the right to propose legislation through a citizens' initiative as important, but this contrasts with Poland and Bulgaria, where only 7% and 11% of people respectively see this right as being particularly important. Relatively high numbers of people in Ireland (17%), Portugal (16%), Bulgaria (15%) and the UK (15%) say they do not know which of their rights as European citizens are the most important. 24

27 The socio-demographic data again show that gender variations are fairly minor, with the most important difference coming with the 50% of men and 46% of women who consider the right to move and reside freely in the EU to be an important right. Age variations are also quite small, although there are some interesting differences between younger and older respondents. Young people are more likely to consider the right to move and reside freely in the EU to be an important right: 55% of year-olds say it is important, but this falls to 52% in the group, 49% in the group, and again to 42% in the 55 and over category. Young people are also more inclined to see the right to vote in European elections if you move to another member state as important: 26% of year-olds say it is important, but this dips to 21% in the and groups, and again to 20% in the 55 and over age-group. However, older respondents are more likely than their younger counterparts to see some of the other citizens rights as important. 25

28 For example, 35% of people in the 55+ group regard the right to good administration by EU institutions as important, but this falls to 34% in the age group, to 32% in the age group, and to 28% in the age bracket. The respondent s level of education has a significant bearing on the importance that people attach to some of the EU citizens' rights under discussion. The most marked difference comes with the right to move freely and reside freely in the EU: 57% of those who finished their education aged 20 or over view this right as important, but this drops to 48% among those who finished their education aged 16-19, and then falls again to 34% among those who left school at 15 or under. Similarly, 26% of those in the 20-andover group think that the right to vote in European elections if you move to another member state is important, but only 20% of those in the group and 17% of those in the 15-and-under group agree. QB5 From the following European citizens' rights, which are the most important to you personally? (MAX. 3 ANSWERS) The right to move and reside freely in the EU The right to good administration by EU institutions The right to submit complaints to the European Ombudsman The right to have access to documents of the EU institutions The right to vote in European elections if you move to another Member State The right to petition the European Parliament The right to propose legislation through a citizens' initiative EU27 48% 33% 32% 21% 21% 20% 19% 9% Sex Male 50% 34% 32% 22% 21% 21% 20% 7% Female 46% 32% 32% 21% 22% 19% 18% 10% Age % 28% 29% 19% 26% 18% 18% 10% % 32% 31% 22% 21% 21% 20% 6% % 34% 33% 24% 21% 21% 20% 7% % 35% 33% 20% 20% 19% 16% 11% Education (End of) 15-34% 32% 32% 19% 17% 18% 17% 15% % 33% 33% 22% 20% 21% 18% 8% % 36% 32% 23% 26% 22% 21% 4% Still studying 58% 26% 28% 18% 28% 19% 20% 9% 26

29 CONCLUSION This Eurobarometer survey demonstrates that the project to connect ordinary citizens with the EU, as embodied by the Treaty of Lisbon, remains a work in progress. With only 14% of people saying that they are well or reasonably well informed about the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and a similar number revealing that they have never even heard of the Charter, it is clear that the main challenge is to educate the general public about their rights as EU citizens. At the same time, people need to be made more aware of the existence of an Ombudsman whose express purpose is to champion those rights. While there is a readiness amongst ordinary citizens to see the EU s performance as generally poor, one encouraging sign is that people who are well informed about the Charter and by implication about the EU itself judge the EU to be performing better than those who know little or nothing about it. Educating the public is therefore desirable not just to make people more aware of their rights, but also to improve their impression of the EU institutions. Public ignorance is as big a problem for the EU s reputation as any shortcomings in the EU s institutions. The survey also shows quite clearly that low levels of approval and general disinterest in the EU are far more marked in some Member States than in others. Particular efforts should be made in those countries to address the negativity which many people seem to harbour about the EU, and to demonstrate, through education about the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Ombudsman charged with upholding the right to good administration, that the EU is a positive influence on the lives of Europeans. It would be wrong to assume, of course, that all of the negative perceptions about the EU s performance are ill-founded. The generally low rating given to the EU s track record on effectiveness, service-mindedness and, in particular, transparency demonstrates that the EU can still work to improve in these areas. The Ombudsman can play an important role in monitoring such efforts and in ensuring that requests for information, for example, are properly expedited by the relevant EU institutions. But, most importantly, the Ombudsman is able to play a proactive role, working with EU institutions to improve their performance rather than simply responding retrospectively to individual complaints. If the systemic issues are tackled effectively, the EU's overall performance will increase commensurately. However, a majority of EU citizens (52%) think the Ombudsman s most important job should be informing people about their rights when in fact the Ombudsman s core function is to investigate complaints. This illustrates the obvious point that people want to know what their rights are before they start thinking about safeguarding them. Right now, not enough EU citizens know their rights. Changing that should be a matter of priority for the whole EU, not just for the European Ombudsman. 27

30 ANNEXES

31 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

32 European Ombudsman TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Between the 9 th of February and the 8 th of March 2011, TNS Opinion & Social, a consortium created between TNS plc and TNS opinion, carried out the wave of the EUROBAROMETER, on request of the EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Directorate-General for Communication, Research and Speechwriting. The SPECIAL EUROBAROMETER is part of wave and covers the population of the respective nationalities of the European Union Member States, resident in each of the Member States and aged 15 years and over. The basic sample design applied in all states is a multi-stage, random (probability) one. In each country, a number of sampling points was drawn with probability proportional to population size (for a total coverage of the country) and to population density. In order to do so, the sampling points were drawn systematically from each of the "administrative regional units", after stratification by individual unit and type of area. They thus represent the whole territory of the countries surveyed according to the EUROSTAT NUTS II (or equivalent) and according to the distribution of the resident population of the respective nationalities in terms of metropolitan, urban and rural areas. In each of the selected sampling points, a starting address was drawn, at random. Further addresses (every Nth address) were selected by standard "random route" procedures, from the initial address. In each household, the respondent was drawn, at random (following the "closest birthday rule"). All interviews were conducted face-to-face in people's homes and in the appropriate national language. As far as the data capture is concerned, CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interview) was used in those countries where this technique was available.

33 ABBR. COUNTRIES INSTITUTES N INTERVIEWS FIELDWORK DATES POPULATION 15+ BE Belgium TNS Dimarso /02/ /03/ BG Bulgaria TNS BBSS /02/ /02/ CZ Czech Rep. TNS Aisa /02/ /02/ Denmark TNS Gallup /02/ /03/ DE Germany TNS Infratest /02/ /02/ EE Estonia Emor /02/ /02/ IE Ireland MRBI /02/ /03/ EL Greece TNS ICAP /02/ /02/ ES Spain TNS Demoscopia /02/ /02/ FR France TNS Sofres /02/ /02/ IT Italy TNS Infratest /02/ /02/ CY Rep. of Cyprus Synovate /02/ /02/ LV Latvia TNS Latvia /02/ /02/ LT Lithuania TNS Gallup Lithuania /02/ /02/ LU Luxembourg TNS ILReS /02/ /03/ HU Hungary TNS Hungary /02/ /02/ MT Malta MISCO /02/ /02/ NL Netherlands TNS NIPO /02/ /03/ AT Austria Österreichisches Gallup-Institut /02/ /02/ PL Poland TNS OBOP /02/ /02/ PT Portugal TNS EUROTESTE /02/ /03/ RO Romania TNS CSOP /02/ /02/ SI Slovenia RM PLUS /02/ /02/ SK Slovakia TNS Slovakia /02/ /02/ FI Finland TNS Gallup Oy /02/ /03/ SE Sweden TNS GALLUP /02/ /02/ UK United Kingdom TNS UK /02/ /02/ TOTAL EU27 09/02/ /03/ For each country a comparison between the sample and the universe was carried out. The Universe description was derived from Eurostat population data or from national statistics offices. For all countries surveyed, a national weighting procedure, using marginal and intercellular weighting, was carried out based on this Universe description. In all countries, gender, age, region and size of locality were introduced in the iteration procedure. For international weighting (i.e. EU averages), TNS Opinion & Social applies the official population figures as provided by EUROSTAT or national statistic offices. The total population figures for input in this post-weighting procedure are listed above. Readers are reminded that survey results are estimations, the accuracy of which, everything being equal, rests upon the sample size and upon the observed percentage. With samples of about 1,000 interviews, the real percentages vary within the following confidence limits: Observed percentages 10% or 90% 20% or 80% 30% or 70% 40% or 60% 50% Confidence limits ± 1.9 points ± 2.5 points ± 2.7 points ± 3.0 points ± 3.1 points

34 QUESTIONNAIRE

35 QB1 How informed do you feel you are about the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU? (SHOW CARD READ OUT ONE ANSWER ONLY) Very well informed Fairly well informed Not very well informed Not at all informed Have never heard of it (SPONTANEOUS) NEW QB2 Based on what you know and using a scale from 1 to 10, how would you judge the performance of the EU administration in each of the following areas? '1' means that the EU administration s performance in a specific area is "not at all satisfactory" and '10' means that its performance is "very satisfactory". (SHOW CARD WITH SCALE ONE ANSWER PER LINE) (READ OUT) 1 Not at all satis facto ry Very satis facto ry 1 Effectiveness of the EU administration Service mindedness of the EU administration Transparency of the EU administration NEW Questionnaire 751 European Ombudsman 1/2 26/04/2011

36 When they encounter poor or failed administration in the institutions and bodies of the EU, European citizens, residents, associations and companies can make a complaint to the European Ombudsman. There are also ombudsmen in the Member States. QB3 According to you, which of the following responsibilities of the European Ombudsman are the most important? (SHOW CARD READ OUT MAX. 3 ANSWERS) Promotes the right of EU citizens to good administration by the EU institutions Promotes the right of EU citizens to gain access to documents of the EU institutions Seeks to strengthen the service-mindedness of the EU administration Ensures that EU citizens know about their rights and how to make use of them Seeks redress for complainants in cases of maladministration Works with ombudsmen in the Member States to ensure that citizens' complaints about the EU are resolved effectively Other (SPONTANEOUS) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, NEW QB4 How interested are you personally to get informed about the responsibilities of the European Ombudsman? Would you say you are? (READ OUT ONE ANSWER ONLY) Very interested Somewhat interested Not very interested Not at all interested NEW QB5 From the following European citizens' rights, which are the most important to you personally? (SHOW CARD READ OUT MAX. 3 ANSWERS) The right to good administration by EU institutions The right to submit complaints to the European Ombudsman The right to have access to documents of the EU institutions The right to petition the European Parliament The right to move and reside freely in the EU The right to propose legislation through a citizens' initiative The right to vote in European elections if you move to another Member State Other (SPONTANEOUS) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, NEW Questionnaire 751 European Ombudsman 2/2 26/04/2011

37 TABLES

38 QB1 Dans quelle mesure estimez-vous que vous êtes informé(e) sur la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l UE? Diriez-vous que vous êtes? QB1 How informed do you feel you are about the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU? QB1 Πόσο ενημερωμένος/η νιώθετε ότι είστε σχετικά με το Χάρτη Θεμελιωδών ικαιωμάτων της ΕΕ; Très bien informé(e) Assez bien informé(e) Pas très bien informé(e) Pas du tout informés Vous n en avez jamais entendu parler (SPONTANE) NSP Total 'Informé(e)' Total 'Pas informé(e)' Very well informed Fairly well informed Not very well informed Not at all informed Have never heard of it (SPONTA- NEOUS) Total 'Informed' Total 'Not informed' % EU 27 BE BG CZ DE EE IE EL ES FR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK Πολύ καλά ενημερωμέ νος/η Αρκετά καλά ενημερωμέ νος/η Όχι και τόσο καλά ενημερωμέ νος/η Καθόλου ενημερωμέ νος/η εν έχω ακούσει ποτέ για αυτό (ΑΥΘΟΡΜΗΤΑ) Γ Σύνολο 'Ενημερωμένο ς/η' Σύνολο 'Όχι Ενημερωμένος/ η'