I rarely let a day go past without e-mailing one or another of the EU institutions with a demand for information. I hope they enjoy receiving my frequent e-mails. But getting information out of OLAF (the EU’s anti-fraud office) is like getting blood out of a stone. After weeks of stonewalling, today I filled out the Ombudsman’s questionnaire:

What is the decision or matter about which you complain? When did you become aware of it?

OLAF’s policy on informing the public about its work is desperately untransparent. I’m fully aware that much of its work is confidential and cannot be disclosed externally, but my enquiries for updates have met with little success.

Specifically, I wanted to find out about two cases mentioned in the press recently - the EP’s internal audit report 06/02, and OLAF’s investigation of the CDE. There was no reply from the primary e-mail address on the website, so I began a correspondence with the Press Officer in February.

Despite my numerous e-mails I have not been able to find out more than the basic details about either case. I’ve reminded OLAF that they have the option under the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour of passing me on to somebody who can help, but they have not done so.

What do you consider that the EU institution or body has done wrong?

They have failed to keep the public adequately informed about their work via their website.

They have a staff of 300, but have published only 5 press releases on their website since the beginning of 2008. There is nothing at all about the most high profile case (the EP’s internal audit report 06/02).

The last Operational Activities report concerns activities carried out up to December 2006. We are now April 2008, and a new report should have been published.

OLAF’s Supervisory Committee might be meeting regularly, but it’s impossible to tell, as there is no information on the website. Furthermore, since the Supervisory Committee doesn’t issue its own information except for sporadic activity reports, it’s impossible to tell if it is doing a good job.

What, in your view, should the institution or body do to put things right?

OLAF should review and update its communications policy, particularly as regards presenting information on its website.

A revised policy should take into account that people have much greater access to the internet nowadays, and frequently want to know what the institutions are doing.

Information about specific investigations should be regularly updated. If the information is confidential, as it often will be, then we should be told why so that we can gain an accurate picture of whether the confidentiality is justified or not. This should be particularly true where cases are reported in the media, and then subject to lengthy investigations.

Information about the Supervisory Committee should be regularly updated on the website. Again, much of their work will be confidential, but there is plenty at the administrative level that should not be concealed: When do they meet? What do they discuss? What have they said OLAF could do to improve its service?

Finally, queries should be answered promptly and helpfully. I don’t think there’s a risk of OLAF being swamped by the public, but the provision of extensive information on the website would help avoid the contingency.

The EU Ombudsman has published his annual report for 2007. Clearly there’s a growing feeling that the institutions of the EU are not sufficiently transparent. People are beginning to understand that they have a right to know what public servants are doing in their name. Taxpayers are making the connection between the money they pay, and the jobs officials are supposed to be doing.

However, like the oil tankers that take seven miles to stop, the EU institutions are only responding in a dilatory way, reports the Ombudsman.

A record number of inquiries (28%) carried out by the European Ombudsman, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros, in 2007 concerned lack of transparency in the EU institutions, including the refusal of information or documents. “Complaints concerning lack of transparency are an opportunity for EU institutions and bodies to demonstrate their willingness to be as open and accountable as possible. I hope that the Commission’s proposals for reform of the legislation on public access to documents will contribute to realising this important goal”, said the Ombudsman.

I wouldn’t bet on it, Mr Diamandouros. You are mincing your words to describe the sheer arrogance of some EU organisations when it comes to releasing information. They fight tooth and nail to obstruct access to anything significant, such as the notorious report on Parliamentary allowances.

This situation will continue until the law is changed, and eurocrats are forced to improve their attitude.