The European Ombudsman and Good Administration in the European Union

Vogiatzis, Nikos

doi:10.1057/978-1-137-57395-7

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this role the EO ensures that European administrative bodies and those who exercise administrative functions make fair and just decisions, assuring both minimal legal standards (the rule of law) and going beyond them (good administration) in protecting citizens from abuses of power. The EO has an important role in the administrative and political accountability of the EU (Magnette 2003;Trondal and Wille 2017;Hofmann & Ziller 2017;Neuhold and Nastase 2017;Inglese and Binder 2018;Vogiatzis 2018).…”

Section: Watchdog Accountability Powers Eu Watchdogs Moving Center Stagementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Likewise, the emergence of international networks of ombudsmen and audit institutions and the establishment of professional standards, international norms and other soft law regulation has contributed to the increased salience of these type of watchdogs. In the EU, the strengthened political attention to budget control (Cipriani 2017) and the salience of good governance and transparency (Vogiatzis 2018) have made the role of the EO and the ECA more prominent as part of the evolving network of accountability institutions (Harlow and Rawlings 2007;Wille 2016).…”

Section: Watchdog Accountability Powers Eu Watchdogs Moving Center Stagementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Watching EU watchdogs assessing the accountability powers of the European Court of auditors and the European Ombudsman

Wille

Bovens

2020

Journal of European Integration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper provides a comprehensive assessment of the accountability capacity of the two main EU watchdog institutions. The overarching research question is: how powerful are these watchdog institutions in holding the EU executive to account? The paper presents an expanded analysis of the formal and organisational accountability powers of these EU watchdogs and how these are exercised, based on an indepth case study. We apply an assessment framework of accountability powers developed previously. Both watchdogs have comparable formal powers when it comes to accountability. Despite these similarities, the EO and the ECA differ in their organisational power and in the exercise of their powers. In the organizational dimension, there are differences regarding leadership. In the exercise of power dimension, the EO has increasingly developed standards for good practice with an emphasis on transparency and principles of good administrative behavior, while also using its networks to further improve complaint handling.

show abstract

Section: Watchdog Accountability Powers Eu Watchdogs Moving Center Stagementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Watchdog Accountability Powers Eu Watchdogs Moving Center Stagementioning

confidence: 99%

Watching EU watchdogs assessing the accountability powers of the European Court of auditors and the European Ombudsman

Wille

Bovens

2020

Journal of European Integration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Úsilí o větší míru transparentnosti je možné poměrně hojně deklarovat na základě kazuistiky. 57 Evro-pský ombudsman kupříkladu v minulosti oslovil Evropskou radu, aby zvážila možnost zveřejňování informací z jejich setkání v rámci Registru transparentnosti EU. 58 Evropský ombudsman k tomu však uvádí, že sám neoplývá naivitou v tom směru, že by byl přesvědčen o náklonosti Evropské komise a Rady k rapidnímu zvýšení transparentnosti.…”

Section: Komplikace Ideálního Fungování Instituce Evropského Ochránce...unclassified

Evropský veřejný ochránce práv

Kořínek¹

2022

sap

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

veřejného ochránce práv je pevně etablovaný mechanismus vnější kontroly unijní administrativní mašinérie. Evropský ombudsman plní svojí misi již téměř tři dekády, i přesto se však zdá, že jeho existence je poněkud upozaděna. Respektive se o něm, jakožto o zažité entitě vůbec nebo jen málo hovoří. Evropský integrační proces má neustále tendence k intenzifikaci, což s sebou přináší i kvantifikaci institucionálního aparátu -unijní administrativy. Každá nová instituce či orgán EU však zároveň navyšuje potencionální riziko nevhodné správní praxe, která se nejčastěji projevuje jako nesprávný úřední postup. Tento příspěvek si klade za cíl připomenout a přiblížit institucionální existenci a činnost evropského ombudsmana. In concreto má ambice přinést vyšší míru povědomí o funkcionalitě evropského ombudsmana. Příspěvek je systematicky rozdělen do třech hlavních částí. První část se věnuje základní charakteristice evropského ombudsmana z hlediska jeho právního základu, struktury, pravomocí a činnosti. Druhá část přináší historické okénko cesty vzniku konceptu ombudsmanství, s pozorností na zrod Evropského ombudsmana. Třetí část se zabývá komplikacemi jeho činnosti, zejména s ohledem na potřebu zvyšování transparentnosti a dostupnosti.

show abstract

“…151 In his in-depth study on the office of the EO, Vogiatzis has assessed that as an accountability mechanism the EO is related and has contributed to the EU's democratization. 152 He links this with the notions of openness, transparency, participation and efficiency. 153 While the language employed is not one of fundamental rights, this does not mean that the EO does not play a role in upholding the Union's fundamental rights obligations.…”

Section: F Extra-judicial Accountability In Practice: Fit For the Task?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Holding the European Asylum Support Office Accountable for its role in Asylum Decision-Making: Mission Impossible?

Tsourdi¹

2020

German Law Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) seeks to harmonize national asylum procedures. The initial implementation design of the CEAS, reflective of the theory of executive federalism, foresaw that national authorities were to conduct asylum processing and implement the harmonized norms. The implementation design of the EU asylum policy has, nevertheless, started to shift. An integrated European administration is emerging. One area this is pronounced in is asylum decision-making, where patterns of joint implementation have surfaced. This term broadly refers to staff and experts deployed by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), an EU agency, working alongside national administrators, including on the processing of asylum claims. This Article scrutinizes the emergence of joint implementation patterns in EU asylum policy and the resulting accountability challenge, drawing both from legal analysis and political science theories. I also refer to administrative practice as documented in secondary sources. EASO is currently subject to a mosaic of accountability processes. Two main pitfalls emerge: the intricate balance between accountability and independence; and accessibility for the individual. Against this backdrop, I focus on extra-judicial accountability through the European Ombudsman which, combined with the envisaged internal “individual complaints mechanism” within EASO, could go some way in ensuring applicants’ procedural rights.

show abstract

The European Ombudsman and Good Administration in the European Union

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Watching EU watchdogs assessing the accountability powers of the European Court of auditors and the European Ombudsman

Watching EU watchdogs assessing the accountability powers of the European Court of auditors and the European Ombudsman

Evropský veřejný ochránce práv

Holding the European Asylum Support Office Accountable for its role in Asylum Decision-Making: Mission Impossible?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About