S IGMA – Support for Improvement in Governance andManagement in Centra l and Eastern EuropeanCountries – is a joint initiative of the OECD and the

European Union. The initiative supports public administrationreform efforts in thirteen countries in transition, and is principally financed by the EU Phare Programme. TheOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Developmentis an intergovernmental organisation of 29 democracies withadvanced market economies. Phare provides grant financingto support its partner countries in Central and Eastern Europeto the stage where they are ready to assume the obligations ofmembership of the European Union.

Phare and SIGMA serve the same countries: Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, the formerYugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

Established in 1992, SIGMA works within the OECD’sPublic Management Service, which provides information andexpert analysis on public management to policy-makers andfacilitates contact and exchange of experience amongst public sector managers. SIGMA offers beneficiary countriesaccess to a network of experienced public administrators,comparative information, and technical knowledge connectedwith the Public Management Service.

SIGMA aims to:■ assist beneficiary countries in their search for good

governance to improve administrative efficiency and promote adherence of public sector staff to democraticvalues, ethics and respect of the rule of law;

■ help build up indigenous capacities at the central governmenta l l eve l to face the chal lenges of internationalisation and of European Union integrationplans; and

■ support initiatives of the European Union and other donorsto assist beneficiary countries in public administrationreform and contribute to co-ordination of donor activities.

Throughout its work, the initiative places a high priority on facilitating co-operation among governments. This practiceincludes providing logistical support to the formation of networks of public administration practitioners in Centraland Eastern Europe, and between these practitioners andtheir counterparts in other democracies.

SIGMA works in five technical areas: Public AdministrationDevelopment Strategies; Policy-Making, Co-ordination andRegulation; Budgeting and Resource Allocation; Public ServiceManagement; Financial Control and Audit. In addition, anInformation Services Unit disseminates published and on-line materials on public management topics.

SIGMA

13-15 April 2000, Budapest, Hungary. 8th NISPAcee Conference,“Ten Years of Transition: Prospects and Challenges of the Futurefor Public Administration”. Contact: Viera Wallnerova, NISPAcee, Bratislava, SlovakiaTel/fax: (421.7) 642.85.557, (421.7) 642.85.357; e-mail: viera@nispa.sk; website: http://www.nispa.sk/. In English.

4-6 May 2000, Wigry, Poland. “Ethics in the Public Administration.Prospects and Challenges for the Future for Local Governments”. Contact: Patrycja Suwaj, Project Manager, School of PublicAdministration in Bialystok (WSAP), Poland. Tel: (48.604) 96.67.48; e-mail: patsuvaj@friko7.onet.pl orwsap@falco.man.bialystok.pl . In English and Polish.

10-12 May 2000, Lisbon, Portugal. “First Quality Conference forPublic Administrations in the EU: Sharing Best Practices”. Contact: Ana Neves, Lisbon Congress Centre, Portugal. Tel: (351.21) 360.1408; fax: (351.21) 363.9450; e-mail: anan@aip.pt. In English.

15-26 May 2000, London, UK. “When Citizens Complain: The Roleof the Ombudsman in Improving Public Services”. Two-week international study programme organised by PublicAdministration International, London, UK. Tel: (44.20) 7242.3007; fax: (44.20) 7242.2007; e-mail: pai@public-admin.co.uk; website: http://www.public-admin.co.uk/pai. In English.

3-14 July 2000, Florence, Italy. “Good Governance andAdministration in Europe's Integrated Market”. 11th Session on theLaw of the European Union. Contact: Academy of European Law of the European UniversityInstitute, Florence. Tel/fax: (39.055) 468.5523;e-mail: ciomei@datacomm.iue.it; website: http://www.iue.it. In English.

14-19 July 2000, Tallinn, Estonia, NISPAcee Summer School 2000:Ethics and Responsibility.Contact: NISPAcee, Bratislava, Slovakia. Tel/fax: (421.7) 642 85 557; e-mail: viera@nispa.sk; website: http://www.nispa.sk/news/events.html. In English.

ON THE AGENDAUpcoming Programmes

Please note that not all of the programmes included in this calendar are open to every public administration practitioner or the general public. Details are provideddirectly by the organiser, who may be contacted for further information. If your organisation is planning an event, please send details to SIGMA (address on page 2).A more complete calendar of events may be found at: http://www.oecd.org/puma/sigmaweb.

P M FPublic Management Forum

“Being” Versus “Becoming”

At the policy level, EU accession is mainlythe work of special task forces, workingon pre-determined tasks within pre-agreed

programmes to specific deadlines. Membershipdemands daily involvement of policy bodies ofelected and un-elected officials in a fast changingpolicy environment characterised by complicatedpolicy networks and trade-offs. This is the essenceof life in the Union.At the implementation level, accession requirespreparation of systems to apply the acquis com-

munautaire, the body of European legislation.Membership means effective implementation andenforcement in daily life, as well as the regularupdating of systems to incorporate new rules andjurisprudence of the European Court of Justice.

Building Sustainable InstitutionsDuring the accession phase, candidate countries areguided by the need to meet given requirementssuch as adoption of the acquis communautaire.While this is difficult, prospective Member Statesconfront the even heavier task of ensuring that

A Bimonthly Newsletter for Public Administration Practitioners in Central and Eastern Europe

Administrative Capacities for EU Membership

ΣSIGMA

Vol.VI - N°1- 2000

EU Ombudsman Tackles Poor

Administration

Forum Focus

Building RobustNational Institutions

European Parliamentand the

Enlargement Process

Finland Trains Public Servants for the Duties of Membership

European CourtsExpand Citizens’

Judicial Protection

Continued on page 3 �

Imag

e B

ank/

Jeff

Leed

y

Accession is a project with a clearend — membership of theEuropean Union. But, as theCopenhagen criteria (in summary: democracy, the ruleof law, a market economy,capacity to resist competitivepressures and capacity to take onthe obligations of membership)remind us, membership carriesobligations as well as benefits.Membership requires permanent,continuous, intense, high-levelinvolvement of nationalgovernments and administrationsin the ongoing work of the Union.Accession focuses energy aroundan event; membership is for thelong-term. If countries focus alltheir energy on the event, theymay fail in their preparations tobecome effective Members.

The European Commission’s Phare Programme isthe principal contributor to SIGMA. The currentConvention between the European Commissionand the OECD regulating SIGMA’s operations willcome to an end in December 2000. Negotiations areunderway on the nature and geographic reach ofSIGMA’s support to good governance from 2001onwards, and on programme financing. It is nowclear that financial support to SIGMA for EU candi-date countries will be significantly lower and willnot include financing for Public ManagementForum. We are currently discussing continued collaboration with other Comission Programmes.The OECD does not have sufficient resources tofund PMF; so, unless new funding is found, PMFwill cease to publish in the coming months.

SIGMA launched Public Management Forum in thespring of 1995 in response to requests from cen-tral and eastern European countries for informationon public administration developments in othercountries, especially those in the region and inWestern Europe. The ensuing five years have wit-nessed considerable change in these countries,which has increased the demand for information. A key aim in creating this newsletter was to stimu-late an exchange of experiences among public ser-vants in Central and Eastern Europe, and betweenthese individuals and their counterparts in otherdemocracies. Such an exchange has been criticalto the building of vibrant networks linking profes-sionals across borders, and to encouraging Europeanintegration. The newsletter’s readership now exceeds10,000.

Based on the feedback we have received, PMF hassucceeded in its aim. The newsletter has shed lighton a variety of strategies and tools that are beingused to strengthen core management systems ofgovernance, and on the priorities that different countries have taken in approaching this majorendeavour. Government reformers have drawnupon the articles, contacts, conferences and publications cited in PMF to take their work forward.Opinion formers in and outside of public institu-tions have through this newsletter become moreaware of the inseparable link between a professionalpublic administration and the consolidation ofdemocracy, the rule of law, and free markets.

As European integration has evolved and intensified,PMF has adapted, bringing into focus the expecta-tions of the European Commission and EU MemberStates for the candidate countries. Recent issues ofPMF have set forth the standards of administrationthat new Members will have to uphold in order to bereliable partners in the Union. The newsletter hasalso highlighted the critical role of institution buildingin the economic and democratic renewal of SouthEastern Europe and continues to do so.

I wanted to take this opportunity to inform you asa regular reader of PMF of a situation that is likelyto affect the newsletter. SIGMA is now actively looking for new funding, especially from multilateralinsitutions and major bilateral donors, to preservePMF in some form. We would welcome ideas fromreaders on PMF’s contribution up to now and howit might be continued.

Bob Bonwitt, Head, SIGMA Programme

Σ - Public Management Forum

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

PMF is published six times a year bySIGMA, the Programme for Supportfor Improvement in Governance andManagement in Central and EasternEuropean Countries.

Views expressed herein do not neces-sarily represent the official views ofthe European Commission, OECDMember countries, or the central andeastern European countries partici-pating in the Programme.

Written submissions are welcome.Story ideas, humour and letters to theeditor should be sent to the addressbelow. The editors reserve the right toedit submissions for clarity, style, gram-mar and space on the basis of, interalia, the OECD Style Guide.

ΣHead, SIGMA Programme

Bob Bonwitt

Editor-in-ChiefBart W. Édes

Managing EditorBelinda Hopkinson

Production AssistantPatricia Prinsen-Geerligs

French versionOECD Translation Service

Halima Benlatrèche, copyeditor

DesignAIRE, Cergy, France

PrinterLes Presses de Brévannes, Limeil-Brévannes,

France

Public Management ForumSIGMA-OECD Information Services2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, FranceTel: (33.1) 45.24.79.00 - 45.24.13.76Fax: (33.1) 45.24.13.00e-mail: sigma.contact@oecd.org Website: http://www.oecd.org/puma/sigmawebISSN Number: 1024-7416Copyright OECD, 2000

Permission to reproduce or translate all or parts ofthis newsletter for non-commercial purposes isgranted free of charge provided that the source isduly mentioned as follows: “© OECD.Reproduced by permission of the OECD” andthat the author’s name and PMF volume, num-ber, and date are listed. Please send a vouchercopy of any reprinted article to SIGMA at theaddress above.

Public Management Forum is printed on recy-clable paper.

P M FP u b l i c M a n a g e m e n t Fo r u m

■ Managing EU Membership • Judicial Protection of the Citizen Under European Law 4• The EU after Enlargement: Managing Coexistence of Newcomers and Veterans

in a United Europe 6• Forum Focus: The EU Ombudsman and Good Administration 8• A Capable Centre of Government Supports European Aspirations 10• Finland Shows Importance of Training in EU Preparations 12

■ Fresh off the Press• Essays on Integration 14• Inbox: A Compendium of Recent Articles and Publications 14

■ Public Management in OECD Countries• New Mandate for the OECD Public Management Service 15

■ On the Agenda 16

PMF’S UNCERTAIN FUTURE

the new arrangements are sustainable,including in budgetary terms. The capacityto implement the acquis and ensure thenecessary judicial protections and enforce-ment systems must continue to functionaccording to the standards of the currentMembers even when the pressure of acces-sion has been removed.The “European Construction” advancespartly through the multitude of contactsbetween national and European officials.Participating in these networks is a heavydrain on stretched national administrations,but it is a vital mechanism, helping toanchor membership and providing animportant channel for the creation of the“European Administrative Space”. Althoughaccession requires the involvement of a widepolicy community, membership requireseven greater strength in depth.If a new Member State lacks capacity tocomply with the rules, other Membersmay be put at risk. It may also be costly forthe Union as it may generate additionalburdens on the control institutions, suchas the European Courts of Justice andAuditors. A Member with inadequateadministrative capacities may be subject to fines or compensation requirements.But the real cost to the new Member willbe opportunity losses from ineffective participation. The importance of ensuringreliable administrative capacities cannotbe underestimated.This issue of PMF addresses areas in whichcandidate countries need to develop theiradministrative and judicial capacities, andhighlights some of the expectations of pivotalEuropean institutions.

Implementing European Policy at the National LevelAs a general rule, and with few exceptions,the European institutions do not imple-ment the EC Treaties and the acquis. Indeed,the tasks of implementation and enforce-ment lie with the national administrationsof Member States in accordance with theprinciples of “structural subsidiarity” and“loyal and effective co-operation”.The European Court of Justice (ECJ) hashad a major influence in defining Europeannotions of “public administration” and“public sector”. It also has established standards for managing public services,set common principles for public adminis-tration within the Union, and contributed togreater intervention by European institu-tions into the economies of Member States.

On page 4, the President of the EuropeanCourt of Justice, Gil Carlos RodríguezIglesias, describes developments in Europeanlaw over the years, and underlines the keyrole of Member State courts in shaping theEC legal order. He also draws attention tothe dependence of a well-functioning EClegal system on the strength, effectiveness,and co-operation of national courts andthe ECJ. The gradual development of thesupranational legal order of the EuropeanUnion has led to enhanced protection ofthe rights of European citizens and strength-ening of the powers of the judiciary in theMember States. The ECJ plays a key rolein these developments.

Robust Institutions for EU MembershipOn page 6, Elmar Brok, Chairman of theEuropean Parliament’s Foreign AffairsCommittee, stresses the need for nationalinstitutions to function effectively in orderto manage membership. The EuropeanParliament will give its consent to each andevery admission to the EU based on factorsincluding whether the institutional reformsundertaken by candidate countries are sustainable and of sufficient quality.The European Commission’s 1999 RegularReports on progress towards accession bycandidate countries clearly show that thereremain important gaps to be filled forcountries to be able to meet these criteria.Shortcomings identified in the reports pointto the need for candidate countries to clearlyembed the rule of law and legal certaintyof official decisions in administrative law,to provide adequate enforcement by anindependent judiciary, and to strengthentheir accountability systems.The rule of law calls for public adminis-tration to operate on a firm legal basis,respectful of citizens, and accountable inits actions. Curbing maladministration inEuropean institutions and ensuring thatthese institutions are accountable to thecitizens of the Union are key roles of theEuropean Ombudsman, Jacob Söderman.In Forum Focus (page 8), Södermandescribes efforts to forge a “fundamentalright to good administration” at the EUlevel.On page 12, Juhanni Turunen, PermanentUnder-Secretary in the Finish Ministry ofFinance, describes his country’s extensivetraining of civil servants to prepare themboth for EU membership in general, andfor the demanding task of hosting the EUPresidency. Turunen’s article addresses such

issues as sequencing and content of train-ing and suggests what lessons can belearned by aspiring Members.

Europe’s Future at StakeInsufficient administrative and judicialcapacities in new Member States couldimpede progress of the “EuropeanConstruction”. It is because of the seriousconsequences of incomplete developmentof administrative capacities that we dedicatethis issue of PMF to EU perspectives onwhat candidate countries can anticipate asthey move towards accession. Repre-sen-tatives of some key EU institutions respon-sible for supervising application of theacquis have kindly volunteered to sharetheir reflections on this important concern.In the next issue, we will look at whataspiring EU Member States are doing todevelop these capacities to support mem-bership, and what they see as the greatestpriorities and challenges in the process.Ongoing efforts to reform structures andprocesses within the European Commissionaim to make the Commission more effi-cient and to prepare it for enlarged mem-bership. ■

For more on institution building for EU accession, seeSIGMA Paper 26: Sustainable Institutions for EuropeanMembership, 1998, and SIGMA Paper 27: EuropeanPrinciples for Public Administration, 1999.

MANAGING EU MEMBERSHIP

Vol. VI - N°1 - 2000 - 3 Σ

Continued from page 1 �

Administrative Capacities for EU Membership

If a new Member State lackscapacity to comply with the

rules, other Members may beput at risk. It may also be costlyfor the Union as it may generate

additional burdens on thecontrol institutions, such as theEuropean Courts of Justice and

Auditors. A Member withinadequate administrative

capacities may be subject tofines or compensation

requirements. But the real costto the new Member will be

opportunity losses fromineffective participation.

European Community law hascontributed to a steady expansionof judicial protection of MemberStates’ citizens. Upon accession,EU candidate countries will beexpected to contribute to uniformand effective functioning of theCommunity legal system by,among other things, ensuring thattheir national courts are strongand effective.

The success of European integrationhas largely been due to the respectgiven to the rule of law. One of the

most striking features of the process of integration has been the important roleplayed by the European Communities andthe Court of Justice in particular, in thewidening and strengthening of the judicialprotection of the rights of the citizen.Under Article 220 of the EC Treaty, theCourt of Justice of the European Commu-nities (ECJ) is specifically entrusted withensuring that in the interpretation andapplication of the Treaty the law is observed. The ECJ exercises its jurisdiction by means of a number of judicial procedures provided for in the Treaty:

• the procedure for finding that a MemberState has failed, either by omission or bycommission, to fulfil its obligationsunder Community law;

• the action for annulment, whereby legislation and decisions adopted by the Community institutions can be challenged; and

• the preliminary reference procedure,whereby national courts can refer questions of validity and interpretationof particular provisions of Communitylegislation to the Court.

The ECJ shares the function of ensuring thatCommunity law is observed with the Courtof First Instance (the Community court setup in 1989) and, above all, with the courtsin the Member States. Since such decen-tralisation could risk jeopardising the uni-form interpretation of Community legislationas a result of the differing interpretationsgiven by the courts in the different states,the purpose of the preliminary reference pro-cedure established by the CommunityTreaties is precisely to ensure the uniforminterpretation of Community law. These preliminary ruling proceedings constitute a step in the main action beforethe national court or tribunal. The systemis based on a strict separation of tasksbetween the national court — which isentrusted with settling the dispute betweenthe parties and applying Community lawto the case before it — and the Court ofJustice, whose task is restricted to inter-preting Community law or, where appro-priate, reviewing the validity of a piece ofCommunity legislation or a decision takenby one of its institutions.

Three Fundamental PrinciplesThe central role played by the national judgein the application of Community law is adirect result of the identification and development by the European Court ofJustice of certain fundamental principles.These are the principles of direct effect,supremacy, and state liability for loss ordamage suffered as a consequence of abreach of Community law.The principle of direct effect, identified inthe Van Gend en Loos judgement in 1963,

provides that individuals may rely directlyon rights conferred upon them byCommunity law in national legal proceed-ings. They may do this without any needfor specific national legislation, providedthat the Community law texts at issue aresufficiently precise and unconditional. The principle of direct effect constitutes theexpression of the concept of Communitylaw as a legal order whose subjects are notonly states, but also individuals who holdtheir own legal rights and obligations createddirectly by the Community legal order.These are rights that the national courtsand tribunals must protect. This concepthas proven decisive in subsequent develop-ment of the Community legal system.Similarly, it is up to the national judge toensure the respect of the principle ofsupremacy of Community law. Accordingto the doctrine of supremacy, all nationaljudges have to apply Community law inits entirety, and are therefore under an obli-gation to disregard any conflicting provisionof national law, whether adopted before orafter the Community provision, in order toprotect the rights conferred on individuals byCommunity law.Finally, the national judge is responsible forapplying the principle of state liability forbreach of Community law provisions thathas caused loss or damage to individuals.In accordance with this principle, indi-viduals who have suffered loss further to aMember State’s failure to comply withCommunity law may claim damages in thenational court provided three conditionsare fulfilled. These conditions are that: theCommunity provision at issue was intendedto confer rights upon individuals; the breachcommitted by the state was “sufficientlyserious”; and there is a direct causal linkbetween the breach and the loss suffered.It is the national court’s task to ascertainwhether these three conditions are fulfilled.

Common Principles Across Member StatesApart from these three principles, whichare specific to Community law, the generalprinciples of law common to the laws ofthe Member States are also one of the maintools of judicial development of Commu-

Judicial Protection of the Citizen under European Law

4Σ - Public Management Forum

Gil Carlos Rodríguez Iglesias

by Gil Carlos Rodríguez Iglesias

Cou

rtes

y ph

oto

nity law, and are applied throughoutCommunity law. Indeed, the use of generalprinciples common to the laws of theMember States in Community law is a veryimportant expression of the convergenceand interaction between different legal systems. In this respect, comparative lawplays an important part in the process ofjudgement making at the Court.Effective judicial protection at the nationallevel constitutes the basis for the principlesof direct effect, supremacy and state liability.The national courts are an integral part ofthe Community legal order. So much so,that in cases in national courts involvingCommunity law, national procedural rulesapply. This is so because it is understoodthat in order to ensure the protection of therights that citizens derive from the directeffect of Community law, the proceduralconditions cannot be less favourable thanthose relating to similar actions of a domes-tic nature and cannot make the exerciseof those rights excessively difficult.But Community law has limited the scope ofnational procedural autonomy progressivelyso as to accommodate the requirementsderiving from the principle of effectivejudicial protection. One consequence hasbeen that any administrative decisionadopted by national authorities, and whichapplies Community law, has to be reviewableand subject to judicial control. This right toa judicial remedy is a fundamental principleinherent to Community law. This includesthe right to receive the reasons from thenational authority for every administrativedecision upon which the effectiveness ofjudicial control depends.The most illustrative example of the appli-cation of the principle of effective judicialprotection is in the context of interimmeasures proceedings. In the Factortame I

judgement of 1990, the Court recognisedthat under Community law the nationalcourts had to have jurisdiction to grantinterim relief from the effects of a rule ofnational law which was allegedly contraryto Community law (pending a ruling onthe corresponding preliminary questionon the interpretation of the Communitylaw rule from the Court) even though theydid not have that jurisdiction undernational law.Moreover, in the Zückerfabrik judgementof 1991, the ECJ recognised that nationalcourts may order the provisional suspensionof the effect of a piece of domestic legislationadopted in application of a Communityrule where the validity of the Communitylaw rule is in doubt (provided the questionon the validity of that rule was referred tothe Court by the national court). The most interesting aspect of the case lawon interim relief is that it has resulted inempowering national judges to grant relief

that they would not necessarily have hadjurisdiction to do under national law, andeven requires them to grant relief underCommunity law that they would not beallowed to do under national law.

Contribution of National CourtsThe Court's boldest developments ofCommunity law principles have come aboutas the result of the initiatives of the nationalcourts. In identifying the relevant issues andreferring them to the Court and often sug-gesting explicitly or implicitly the mannerin which the questions raised should beanswered, the national courts have played amajor role in the shaping and the develop-ment of the Community legal order.The challenge for the future lies in theaccession of the new Member States. Theuniform and effective functioning of theCommunity legal system very muchdepends on the strength, effectiveness andco-operation of all of the national courts inthose countries.Since Community law has proved to be afactor in the expansion of judicial protectionand also in enlargement of the powers of thejudiciary in the Member States, a higherdegree of judicial review of state action hasbeen a necessary corollary of the submissionof sovereignty to the rule of law. This is probably the most outstanding feature of theEuropean Community legal order and is onethat is bound to have an impact on the roleof the ordinary domestic courts in the coun-tries that accede to the Union. ■

Gil Carlos Rodríguez Iglesias is President of the Court ofJustice of the European Communities. He can be reachedat the Court of Justice, Palais de la Cour de justice,Boulevard Konrad Adenauer,Kirchberg, L-2925Luxembourg; tel: (352) 4303.3382; fax: (352)4303.2600; e-mail: info@curia.eu.int.

Vol. VI - N°1 - 2000 - 5 Σ

The Court's boldestdevelopments of Community

law principles have come aboutas the result of the initiatives of

the national courts…The challenge for the future lies

in the accession of the newMember States. The uniform

and effective functioning of theCommunity legal system very

much depends on the strength,effectiveness and co-operationof all of the national courts in

those countries.

MANAGING EU MEMBERSHIP

Vol. VI - N°1 - 2000 -

CJC

E

of accession and the part which has to becovered after accession. We are not nego-tiating if EU regulations on environmen-tal protection, health policy or competitionwill be valid in the candidate countries inthe future, but rather when they will enterinto force. The whole impact of change asa consequence of accession will not be feltat the formal accession date, but only whentransitory agreements and adjustmentsexpire. This means that the candidatecountries will have to prepare themselveswell in the years to come, while keeping inmind the possibility that the duration ofthe transitory agreements can be shortenedif the approximation of economic andsocial development of a candidate to thecurrent Member States allows this.

Fixing those transitory deadlines requiresa highly complicated balance of interests.There have already been some differencesabout the extent of transitory agreements.For instance, in agriculture, which hasalready proven to be one of the most deli-cate areas of the negotiations, some of thecandidate countries have requested long-term exceptions from EU veterinary andhygiene standards. Conversely, some can-didate countries would like to have theright of free movement of their citizensenter into force immediately after acces-sion. Governments of some currentMember States already argue that it is notreasonable to claim all the rights of mem-bership at once, while demanding verylong transitory agreements regarding theduties. It is very likely that similar debateswill go on for a long time.

Gaining Public SupportSo what obligations and implications willEU membership impose on the candidates?Gaining membership will be a challengingfeat for some. Effective participation for themutual benefit of newcomers and veteransonce they have been accepted as full-fledgedMembers will be not be easy for any ofthem. The candidate countries will thereforehave to continue to excise the remnants ofcommunism in the political and economicsense, even though economic, administra-tive and institutional reforms have already

led to, or will lead to, more unemploymentand a decline in living standards in thebeginning. Shortcomings before thesereforms take effect will have to be correctedin co-operation with the EU in the contextof the accession partnerships and drawingupon aid provided by the EU. Anotherimportant task confronting the candidatecountries is to maintain their peoples’ support for accession.

Recent polls have shown a decline inapproval in some countries, due to thepreviously mentioned hardships connectedwith the overhaul of the whole politicaland economic system of a state. Since theapproval of the citizens is a fundamentaldemocratic requirement of EU member-ship, the governments of the concernedcountries should undertake every effortto convince their citizens of the benefitsthat membership in a community ofpeace, freedom, welfare and values willbring to them in the long run.

Enlargement is a costly and lengthy under-taking that requires sacrifices on bothsides, but securing peace and stability inEurope on a long-term basis may requireinvestments before they pay off. Membership in the EU or at least theprospect of membership within reach isthe best way to support political stability,which alone can breed a favourable climatefor steady growth. ■

Elmar Brok is a German member of the EuropeanParliament and chairs the Committee on Foreign Affairs,Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy.He can be reached in Brussels at tel: (32.2) 284.53.23,e-mail: ebrok@europarl.eu.int.

Vol. VI - N°1 - 2000 - 7 Σ

MANAGING EU MEMBERSHIP

erans in a United Europe

Euro

pean

Par

liam

ent

European Parliament, Strasbourg.

Modern systems of administrativelaw embody the principle that theadministration exists to servecitizens. The Maastricht Treatycreated the office of the EuropeanOmbudsman to uphold thisprinciple by making inquiries aboutpossbile instances ofmaladministration in the activitiesof Community institutions andbodies. Upon accession, thenational ombudsman offices of newMembers States will become linkedto the European Ombudsmanthrough a liaison network. Citizensof countries joining the EU will beable to address complaints aboutmaladministration in Europeaninstitutions and bodies to theEuropean Ombudsman.

The office of European Ombudsmanwas established by the MaastrichtTreaty, as part of the creation of

the citizenship of the Union. Citizenshipimplies that the Union institutions and

bodies should be accountable to citizens,both through elected representatives andthrough mechanisms of legal and adminis-trative supervision similar to those whichexist at national level to control publicauthorities. The European Ombudsman is required bylaw to perform his duties with complete inde-pendence and impartiality. Any Europeancitizen, any non-citizen living in a MemberState and any business, association or otherbody with a registered office in the Unionmay complain either directly, or through aMember of the European Parliament.

Launching InquiriesThe European Ombudsman’s mandate isto make inquiries about possible instancesof maladministration in the activities ofCommunity institutions and bodies. Theonly exceptions are the Court of Justiceand the Court of First Instance acting intheir judicial role. The role of the EuropeanOmbudsman in ensuring good adminis-tration by Community institutions andbodies is particularly important, becausecitizens have only limited possibilities tobring proceedings directly in theCommunity courts.Since the office became operational inSeptember 1995, the European Ombudsmanhas received over 5000 complaints and newcomplaints are currently arriving at therate of over 130 per month. Most of thecomplaints against Community institu-tions and bodies concern: lack or refusalof information; undue administrative delayor delayed payment; recruitment proce-dures including competitions; contractualdisputes; and the Commission’s actionsor omissions in dealing with infringementsof Community law by Member States.The main institutions which have beenthe subject of inquiries are theCommission (665 cases); the EuropeanParliament (91 cases); the Council (34cases) and the Court of Auditors (sixcases).As well as dealing with complaints, theEuropean Ombudsman has the power tolaunch inquiries on his own initiative. Thispower is used sparingly, usually where a pattern of complaints indicates that there

may be a general problem. Important ini-tiatives include those on access to documents,recruitment to Community institutions,procedures for dealing with complaintsfrom citizens about infringements ofCommunity law, and late payment by theEuropean Commission. Details of theseand other activities can be found in theAnnual Reports, which are available on the Ombudsman’s official website:http://www.europarl.ep.ec/ombudsman.

Co-operation with Member State ombudsmenAbout 70% of the complaints sent to theEuropean Ombudsman are outside themandate. Usually this is because they areagainst national, regional or municipaladministrations in the Member States, whichare responsible for implementing manyaspects of Community law and policy.Individual rights under Community andUnion law should of course be respectedby public authorities at all levels of theUnion and such complaints could often bedealt with effectively by an ombudsman inthe Member State concerned. Twelve of the fifteen Member States of theEuropean Union have a national ombuds-man. Germany and Luxembourg haveParliamentary Committees on Petitionsthat perform an analogous role. Italy hasnot yet succeeded in establishing a nationalombudsman, although numerous propos-als for legislation have been put forward.Ombudsmen also exist at regional andmunicipal level in many Member States.For example, there are ombudsmen in theSpanish autonomías, the Italian regionsand in some of the German Länder.All the national offices are linked to theEuropean Ombudsman through a liaisonnetwork, which ensures that complaintscan, if necessary, be transferred to the bodycompetent to deal with them. Liaison network seminars, to inform aboutCommunity and Union law, have beenheld every year since 1996. Similar eventswere organised for regional ombudsmen inOctober 1997 and April 2000. The European Ombudsman publishes aregular “liaison letter” providing informationabout significant new legal developments,

The EU Ombudsman and Good Administrationby Jacob Söderman

8Σ - Public Management Forum

Jacob Söderman

Euro

pean

Par

liam

ent

and his website links to the websites ofnational ombudsmen and similar bodies.The liaison network also allows the nationaloffices to address queries about Communitylaw to the European Ombudsman.The European Ombudsman has also initi-ated co-operation with national ombuds-men and similar bodies in the states that are candidates to join the European Union. Aseminar on “Ombudsmen and the Law ofthe European Union”, organised jointly with the Slovenian Human Rights ombudsman,was held in Ljubljana 6-8 in June 1999.The papers presented at the seminar andthe final report are available at http://www.varuh-rs.si/cgi/teksti-eng.cgi?eu99semi.The Treaty of Amsterdam reinforced theidea of citizenship with an explicit statementof the constitutional principles on whichthe Union is founded: liberty, democracy,respect for human rights and fundamentalfreedoms and the rule of law. It is impor-tant for the candidate states to recognise thecontribution which ombudsmenand similar bodies can make toimplementing these principles,respect for which is an explicit Treatycondition for membership of theUnion (see Articles 6 and 49).

Good and Bad AdministrationIn every democracy, public admin-istration is subject to the rule of law.Modern systems of administrativelaw also embody the principle thatthe administration exists to serve citizens, not vice versa. In nationalsystems of administration, this prin-ciple is expressed in different ways,such as service-mindedness, citizen-friendliness, the citizen as customerand the concept of public service. The mandate of many ombuds-men, including the EuropeanOmbudsman, is to deal with “mal-administration.” Since this term is not defined by any Communityor Union text, the EuropeanOmbudsman proposed the follow-ing definition after consultationwith the national ombudsmen ofthe Member States:Maladministration occurs when a

public body fails to act in accordance with arule or principle which is binding upon it. This definition is broad enough to includewithin the ombudsman’s review respect forfundamental rights, principles of adminis-trative law and good administration. In1997, the European Parliament adopted aResolution welcoming the definition.To protect the rights of citizens effectively, itis important to explain clearly the require-ments of good administration. This canhelp both to prevent maladministration andto identify and correct it promptly when itdoes occur. In July 1999, following aninquiry launched on its own initiative, theEuropean Ombudsman proposed a Codeof Good Administrative Behaviour forCommunity institutions and bodies. Thisis available on his website in all the officialCommunity languages.The Code includes fundamental principlesof European administrative law, such aslegality, the right to a hearing, proportional-

Vol. VI - N°1 - 2000 - 9 Σ

FORUM FOCUS

ity and protection of legitimate expectations.The Ombudsman intends to submit a“Special Report to the European Parliament”on the response by the Community insti-tutions and bodies to the proposed Code. Ifit considers it appropriate, the EuropeanParliament could use its powers to pursuethe adoption of a European law on goodadministrative behaviour.

Towards a Fundamental Right to Good AdministrationIn June 1999, the Cologne EuropeanCouncil decided to move towards the adop-tion of a Charter of Fundamental Rightsfor the European Union, including funda-mental rights and freedoms as guaranteedby the European Convention on HumanRights, the special rights of citizens of theUnion as well as economic and social rightsas contained in the European Social Charterand the Community Charter of the Funda-mental Social Rights of Workers.

The Tampere European Councilin October 1999 agreed on thecomposition, method of work andpractical arrangements for the bodywhich is to draft the Charter. TheEuropean Ombudsman is one ofthe institutions that must be con-sulted during the drafting process.The Ombudsman’s has proposedthat the Charter include the citizen’sright to good administrative treat-ment. If this proposal is adopted, itcould have a broad impact on allexisting and future Member States,helping to make the 21st centurythe “century of good administra-tion”. ■

Jacob Söderman was re-elected EuropeanOmbudsman by the European Parliament inOctober 1999. For further information about theoffice of the European Ombudsman, contact IanHarden, Head, Legal Department, EuropeanOmbudsman in Strasbourg, France at tel: (33.3)88.17.23.84; e-mail: iharden@europarl.eu.int.For more details on ombudsman offices aroundEurope, see the Council of Europe publication,The Administration and You: a Handbook, 1996.For discussion of the concept of “EU citizenship”,see the Ombudsman's presentation to the 1998FIDE Congress on “The Citizen, theAdministration and Community Law” at http://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int/FIDE/EN/Default.htm.

Image Bank/Bryan Haynes

A strong policy-making system is anecessary precondition foraccession to the EU. It is not bychance that the aspiring EUMember States making the mostprogress towards meeting theCopenhagen criteria have the bestpolicy-making systems of thecandidate countries. Weak policycapacities will make it difficult fora country to fulfil and maintainthe obligations of membershipafter accession.

The quality of a country’s policy-making system affects its ability tomeet the obligations of European

integration. Preparation for accession andmembership need to be underpinned bymechanisms that:• create polices that are not deficient in law

or substance, are economically efficient,and which do not contradict one another;

• create policies that are sustainable inbudgetary terms; and

• lay the foundations for operating effec-tively within the EU.

Weak mechanisms for policy-making willobstruct the progress of a candidate country

towards accession to the EU. The adoptionof the acquis communautaire will be delayed,because laws will not be drafted or adoptedin time. Actual implementation of theacquis may be defective if its impact hasnot been accurately estimated at the policy-making stage. And if a candidate countrydoes not analyse the practical impact ofimplementing the acquis, negotiations maybe disrupted and delayed, for examplebecause the country cannot estimatewhether temporary derogations are needed.In short, a strong policy-making system isa necessary precondition of accession to the EU. It is no coincidence that the candidate countries making the bestprogress towards meeting the Copenhagencriteria have the best policy-making systems among EU applicants and thatthose making the least progress have theweakest policy-making systems. And, self-evidently, weak policy capacities will makeit difficult for a country to fulfil the obli-gations of membership once it becomes amember of the EU. In the ten candidate countries with whichit works, SIGMA has identified three majorweaknesses: weak policy preparation withinministries; poor policy co-ordination betweenministries; and insufficient capacity for policy advice and strategic analysis.

Formulating Options First, policy preparation within ministriesis often weak. There is no tradition in ministries in engaging in policy analysis;the normal approach is to proceed directly tolegal drafting. Little or no attention is paid toidentifying different courses of action andidentifying their consequences. At best thisleads to suboptimal policy making; atworst, it leads to legislation that provesunworkable when it is implemented. There should be a prior stage of identifyingthe efficiency and practicability of differentoptions, and assessing the budgetary, economic, social and environmental conse-quences of the option adopted. While manycountries have some law or decree requiringsuch impact analysis, the only area in whichit seems universally to be observed is the needfor the ministry of finance to comment onbudgetary consequences. However, finance

ministry officials often lack the time or ana-lytical expertise to provide proper budgetaryappraisal, and often the broader economicimpacts are not examined. In non-financial areas, although there areoften legal requirements to assess social,environmental and other impacts, theseare rarely complied with, partly for lackof time and skills, but mostly because thereis no tradition of policy analysis withinministries and, perhaps in some countries,a reluctance to accept responsibility forthe advice offered. If such assessments arecarried out, they are usually shallow andweak. There is rarely any capacity at thecentre of government to check that draftlaws submitted to the council of ministershave been subject to satisfactory assessmentsof their likely impact. These failings have serious implications forEuropean integration. If a country cannotassess the impact of implementing the acquiscommunautaire, it cannot demonstrate thatit can implement the acquis, nor can itidentify areas where it may be necessaryto request temporary derogations.

Acting TogetherA second weakness lies in the policy co-ordination between ministries. There is aneed for ministries to work together in theearly stages of policy development, and forofficials to resolve minor issues in contention,rather than push such issues up to the levelof ministers. Most countries have a law setting out aclear procedure for preparing draft laws,which in particular requires the ministryinitiating the proposal to consult otherministries with an interest in the proposal- especially the ministries of finance andjustice. But only in one or two countriesdoes this work satisfactorily in practice. One principal cause of this lies, again, in thehabit of moving immediately to drafting alegal text, rather than first analysing thepolicy options. Ministries rarely start bycirculating a “concept paper” outliningtheir intentions in general terms in orderto discover the likely reactions of otherministries, so that these reactions can beincorporated in the draft law. Instead, anindividual ministry typically writes and

A Capable Centre of Government Supports European Aspirationsby Simon James

10Σ - Public Management Forum

Simon James

Phot

o/A

lette

Wer

nber

g

circulates a legal text. This is inefficient,because the initiating ministry is naturallythen reluctant to accept substantial changessuggested by other ministries.Another major obstacle to good co-operationis the state of relations between officials ofdifferent ministries. Often these are veryformal; there is reluctance to compromise orto use informal contact to resolve difficul-ties. Information is not shared, sometimesby omission, sometimes deliberately.Consultation between ministries oftenoccurs at a late stage, and is sometimesminimalist. There is little or no conceptof active joint working or pro-active co-operation between ministries. Consequently, quite minor disputes arefrequently referred up to ministers for resolution. Most countries have effectiveministerial mechanisms for these purposes.These include committees of ministers -either formal or informal - which “screen”proposals before they go to the council ofministers; informal meetings of the councilof ministers, held before or after the formalmeeting; conciliation through meetingsbetween the parties that make up the governing coalition; or in some countriesa special role for deputy prime ministers inresolving disputes between their colleagues. Generally, these mechanisms work quitewell. But they are overloaded because theyhave to compensate for inadequate co-ordination at civil service level. Often ministers find themselves resolving minor

issues that should have been settled betweencivil servants. This distracts ministers fromtheir main task of considering major strategicissues. It would be desirable for disputes tobe resolved at a lower level, which in turnwould require ministers to delegate to theirprofessional staff a greater discretion to discussand negotiate on behalf of their ministers.

Bolstering Capacity to Plan and Advise In most countries, the policy advice andstrategic analysis capacity of the centre ofgovernment needs to be strengthened. Thegovernment office supporting meetings ofthe council of ministers is usually confined toa secretarial role. It plays little part in ensur-ing that proposals are internally consistent,sufficiently thought through, with adequateresources, and are congruent with otherproposals and with the government’s overallstrategy. Given the general weakness of policy making within and between ministries,this lack is particularly serious. Ideally there should be a small group ofadvisers with, between them, expertise incertain key strategic areas, such as economics,European integration, social policy, the envi-ronment, etc. Their functions would be:• to review and advise on the proposals

being put forward by ministries, com-menting on them from the strategicangle - how the proposals fits into theoverall government strategy - as well asmaking any more general comments onthe substance of the policy; and

• to help in the planning of longer-termstrategy. Often proposals are consideredin isolation, and are not related to the over-all objectives of the government. Spendingproposals are sometimes considered in isolation, and not in the context of the overall budget. Conversely, problems thatemerge unexpectedly, if not already coveredby the government programme, can lieneglected until they turn into a crisis. Agroup with a good knowledge of overallpolicy development could help the government identify policy areas whichneed attention and help bring overallcoherence to the government’s policies.

A number of countries do have such a capa-city, but based within the prime minister’soffice (PMO) and usually serving him alone.This has disadvantages: the council of min-isters as a whole needs some source of adviceon the adequacy of proposals put to it. Staffin the PMO is often diverted into daily crisismanagement, and when the governmentchanges, this staff changes, too, erasing thecentre of government’s institutional memory. Correcting these three types of shortcomingsmay seem like a modest endeavour. But itcould make a substantial difference to thequality of government in candidate countries,and consequently to their ability to meet theobligations of European integration. ■

Simon James is Acting Head of SIGMA’s unit on PolicyMaking, Co-ordination and Regulation. He can be reached in Paris at fax: (33.1) 45.24.13.00; e-mail: simon.james@oecd.org.

Vol. VI - N°1 - 2000 - 11 Σ

MANAGING EU MEMBERSHIP

Imag

e B

ank/

Jay

Bel

mor

e

Before Finland acceded to theEuropean Union in 1995, the countrywas well prepared both “mentally”

and materially for the newchallenges of membership. In areferendum held in the autumn of1994, the Finnish people votedoverwhelmingly to join the EU, andhave remained supporters ofmembership ever since. TheGovernment and civil servantsclearly showed their commitment inthe successful operation and goodresults of the Finnish Presidencyduring the second half of 1999.Preparations for this prominent role,like preparations for membershipitself, began well in advance andincluded a large training component.

Training for Integration

Finland took the first steps to prepare itspublic administration and to train civilservants for European integration in

1993, some two years before accession. Inorder to guarantee effective planning andfunding of the training programme, theMinistry of Finance assumed responsibilityfor co-ordinating and co-financing trainingactivities with the ministries. The purpose of relying on centralised train-ing for integration was to ensure the devel-opment of a few key areas of competence,such as familiarity with EU decision making,administrative structures of other MemberStates, as well as negotiation, communicationand language skills. Responsibility for imple-menting training rested with the ministriesand agencies, as well as with officials them-selves, to whom discretionary financing wasprovided.The aim of the training process was to ensurea broad range of integration expertise in theadministration. It was also necessary toestablish networks between the adminis-tration and other sectors of society in orderto exchange experiences. The third element

was to open channels of co-operation withthe other Member States.The Ministry of Finance paid for training inthree different ways. It commissioned andfinanced some courses, provided discre-tionary subsidies to branches of the admin-istration to organise courses, and offeredtraining stipends to individuals (see below).

The courses covered subjects such as the procedures of EU institutions, the decision-making process, and committee work (andhow to influence it). In addition, manage-ment-training programmes provided oppor-tunities to highlight the EU viewpoint of a Member State. Officials going abroad toacquire practical experience or to study

Finland Shows Importance of Training in EU Preparations

12Σ - Public Management Forum

Imag

e B

ank/

Mic

hael

Mur

phy

by Juhani Turunen

MANAGING EU MEMBERSHIP

were able to receive grants from centralised training funds.The training process initially involved a widerange of civil servants and aimed to providethem with a broad picture of integrationissues. Subsequently, training was focusedmore on those who had to deal on a dailybasis with these issues, and went deeper intothe subject matter. Target groups includedthose working primarily at the manageriallevel, experts, and candidates for the EUrecruitment process. Among the targetswere “Euro-trainees”, young multilingualprofessionals with an academic degree.After an intensive training period thatincluded a working period, many of themcontinued in the Finnish public adminis-tration or were recruited by the EU insti-tutions or the private sector. When Finland began its EU trainingprocess in 1993, the country was in themiddle of a very deep economic recession.The budget rigour excluded any possibilityfor an extensive increase of personnel. Themain strategy of coping with the new chal-lenges was to improve the competenciesand knowledge of existing personnel, andto restructure the resources according tothe coming new tasks. This has caused anextensive increase of workload in some areas,but also improved organisation and methodsof working. The strength and the dynamismof the Finnish public administration in theEU context is based on skills and the strongcommitment of civil servants to carry outtheir new tasks, and on the ability of civilservants to combine the “EU dimension”with their daily domestic responsibilities.

Training for the Presidency Planning for the Finnish Presidency beganalmost four years in advance – in the autumnof 1995. Secretaries-general at the variousministries drafted a new training strategy,which was subsequently approved by theGovernment. As explained below, the min-istries prepared their own training plans,including the selection of target groups, onthe basis of this strategy.The broad aim of this particular type oftraining was to develop and support thosewith duties related to the Finnish Presidencyto ensure that they were contributing as

effectively as possible to attaining objectivesset for the Presidency.

The Ministry of Finance was given respon-sibility for strategic management of train-ing and for arranging funding. Each ministrywas responsible for selecting its own trainees,and for planning and implementing thetraining. The main target groups identifiedfor training included:• ministers and their key

advisors;• chairpersons of the coun-

cil of ministers workinggroups, and theirdeputies and advisors;

• Finland’s national repre-sentatives in EU workinggroups and theirdeputies;

• officials heavily involvedin preparing and co-ordinating EU matters;and

• officials at Finland’sPermanent Representa-tion to the EU and, selec-tively, from the entireForeign Service.

Presidency training focused on:• negotiating techniques;• language and communication skills;• knowledge about EU matters;• workings and procedures of the EU juridi-

cal and administrative machinery; and• other Member States and their cultures.

This training was an extensive project interms of both costs and number of trainingdays. The positive effects of the project haveextended beyond the Presidency and will befelt far into the future. A detailed assessmentof the value of the investment in trainingshowed that civil servants were very active inpreparing the Finnish Presidency. They tookpart in different training programmes, devel-oped their language skills, and expressedgreat satisfaction with the training results.

Lessons LearnedThe experiences and outcomes of therecently concluded Finnish Presidency clearly

demonstrate the advantages of thoroughpreparations and effective training. The sit-uation confronting Finland at the begin-ning of its Presidency was extremelycomplicated in view of the resigningCommission and a new Parliament. Thesecircumstances made it an extraordinary chal-lenge for the Presidency to “run the busi-ness” of the European Union. Nevertheless,a satisfactory solution was reached on most

of the issues placed on theFinnish Presidency’s agenda.

This was possible becauseadvance preparationsensured: • a clear definition of the

Presidency role;• ambitious yet realistic

goal-setting, and com-mitment to fulfilling thegoals established;

• awareness of the politicalstatus and responsibilitiesof the Presidency;

• long-term planning ofthe managerial tasks ofthe Presidency;

• graining of key persons;• good knowledge of the organisation and

the people in different EU institutionsand in the Member States;

• good co-operation between differentactors, and a common understanding ofthe roles and responsibilities of differentinstitutions; and

• acknowledgement of the framework ofthe Presidency and recognition of the free-dom to act within this framework.

Finland’s experience within the EuropeanUnion, including the great responsibility ofholding the Presidency, suggests that candidate countries must invest early andheavily in targeted training and planning to act effectively as EU Members. ■

Juhani Turunen is Permanent Under-Secretary of Statein Finland’s Ministry of Finance. He can be reached inHelsinki at e-mail: Iina.Kankainen@vm.vn.fi.

Vol. VI - N°1 - 2000 - 13 Σ

Finland’s experiencewithin the EuropeanUnion, including the

great responsibility ofholding the Presidency,suggests that candidatecountries must invest

early and heavily in targeted training

and planning to act effectively as EU Members.