ACCESS TO PUBLIC SERVICES – EUROPEAN EXPERIENCES TO SHARE
Dr. Katrin Nyman Metcalf

1.	Introduction

A state governed by the rule of law can mean much more than just the existence of proper laws and rules, it also means more than democracy. It can mean a state in which democratically taken decisions can be implemented in such a manner that the benefits of policies decided can be enjoyed by the citizens of the state. This may sound abstract but in its implementation means something very specific: it means that an individual can have access to public services on reasonable, equitable and fair grounds. As a citizen of a state, you will feel that the state and the services it in one or other way provides are there for you, for your benefit. This should include all kinds of public services, interpreted widely and irrespective of whether the service is actually provided by the public sector or not. The provision of public services, the standard of the service and the way in which it is provided, is linked to the economy of a state. A certain economic standard - of public finances and in the prolongation also of the  citizens - is necessary in order to be able to provide public services, which are often costly. This is the case whether the services are provided for free and financed through tax revenue or if they are paid for (to some extent) by the user – the money has to come from basically the same sources in any case. But in the construction of democratic states governed by the rule of law in Central and Eastern Europe, the provision of public services and access to such services is an important and often difficult element, far beyond only the (admittedly serious) economic issues. Public services must be accessible to citizens on a free and fair basis, without discrimination, corruption or problems caused by inefficiency or disregard for rules. Equitable and fair access to the services that exist are not directly linked with economy: even if the level of a service is low the access to it may be - and should be - fair. 

In many areas - education, health, infrastructure, internal security as well as basic democratic institutions – previously existing services in Central and Eastern European states were inadequate and major costly reforms are needed.  This includes reforms of the actual services as such as well as of the regulatory systems governing them. The often extreme centralisation of the old system needs to be changed to bring administration closer to the people. The private sector has in some cases been brought in, which highlights yet other issues from the regulatory viewpoint – primarily questions of independent control. The major underlying questions to be addressed – and this in a short period, where for Western European states the systems often developed over a long time – are how to ensure democratic control and accountability as well as equal or equitable access for citizens and others to the public services.

The theme for this paper is not the actual provision of services, but the issue of access to public administration and public services, what principles should guide public administration and how to ensure equitable access for all. The paper talks mainly of public administration, but interprets this in a wide sense, including provision of services as well as the decision-making and regulation which may go with the term. The paper looks at experiences of the EU and of EU Member States to see if there are models and examples that can be useful for Central and Eastern Europe – and in that case how. This issue is particularly important because of the application of Central and East European states to join the EU, but it is not relevant only in this context. It may even be dangerous to see the issue only from the viewpoint of adaptation to the EU, as the important thing is that citizens should really have access on fair terms to public services, not just that they are seen to have it based on criteria set out in the EU membership negotiations. 

This paper points to the needs and demands put on public administration in general and with it public services and of means to achieve it. It looks at actual and equal access to services, understood as the absence of discrimination and corruption (which to some extent also includes the efficient functioning of the services). The paper analyses what is needed for the public administration to function well for the benefit of the people and if and how it is possible for EU Member States and the EU as such to transfer knowledge of practical benefit for the creation of a good system of public services with equal access for all.    

2.	The European Union and Public Administration

The issue of public administration and public services is not an area, which is regulated in detail by EC/EU law. There is actually hardly any acquis communautaire on administrative law or systems as such – they are not the same or even harmonised in existing Member States. The influence that EU membership has had on administrative and public sector services is more indirect and fluid, even if it is beyond doubt that there is an influence. What is more important is that there has developed a set of principles and rules that are recognised as being elements of well functioning administrative systems and these principles and rules act as yardsticks for countries, rather than as concrete pieces of legislation to imitate or copy. The notion of ”European Administrative Space” is often used when discussing public administration in the EU and in candidate countries to illustrate the common principles, general rules and ideas in the administrative sphere.    

Public administration has been more or less left out of the EC Treaty, as far as any specific provisions are concerned. This is not by oversight but on purpose as the manner in which a state designs its public administration is considered as belonging to the sovereignty of each Member State. There should be no interference from the EC/EU organs or any direct influence of EU membership on how administrative matters are handled in a state. Administrative law is an area of the law that traditionally is less open to internationalisation and harmonisation with that of other countries. This did not – even from the early days of the EC - mean that there was no influence whatsoever of the Community, later Union, on the public administration of the Member States. The close co-operation between the states, the fact that the administrative systems all implemented EC law and other factors contributed to an influence. A certain amount of legal uniformity is necessary in the EU and this cannot leave administrative legal uniformity to one side. Some of this influence can be seen in the Treaties, even if not directly, some is only evident in practice. When Article 10 EC (former Article 5) says that Member States shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular to ensure fulfilment of the obligations coming out of the Treaty or Community institutions, this includes as an important element that their administrative procedures  must be up to the correct and fair implementation of EC law. But there are no specific references to the efforts of national administrations in the EC treaty or in its later revisions. Member States however developed by necessity the administrative capacity to deal with EC law and over the years more and more co-operation has developed between Member States also on administrative matters. Article 94 EC (former Article 100)  on law approximation mentions that directives on approximation may concern laws, regulations or administrative provisions in Member States. Thus if administrative provisions affect the establishment or functioning of the common market, also these can be approximated to achieve harmonisation. The situation in the field of public administration in the Member States is however clearly one of co-operation and the strive for cohesion rather than approximation to achieve uniformity.

The EU has taken a more active role over the years in directing Member States in the implementation of EC law at the same time as the scope of EC/EU law and its field of application has grown. Although the idea of the different legal instruments available in EC law is to give the Member States more or less influence over how they implement EC law, it happens that the Commission in its proposals also for Directives in fact gives quite a lot of guidance to the Member States on the implementation, to avoid harmful discrepancies. The recent proposed Directive concerning free movement of persons is one such example. In the explanatory memorandum to the proposal, it says that although the choice of a Directive was the only possible choice in this context, as it has to be up to the Member States to a certain extent how to implement the provision in the most suitable way, certain provisions are very detailed in order to avoid differences between administrative practices or differences of interpretation creating obstacles to rights being exercised in practice.

There are obviously administrative rules for the EC/EU itself – such a large and important organisation could not function without rules for decision-making, internal practical issues, liability and so on. However, it is not obvious that such rules have had any particular influence or importance for administrations in the Member States or candidate countries. The staff rules of the EU are quite encompassing  and there is also a large body of case law in this field. These rules are rarely of much interest outside of the exact framework in which they apply and the case law in this area is not something students of EC/EU law would normally come into contact with. The body of rules has been shaped by influences from the different Member States and by its own momentum. It is often said that French law and the French administrative system had the greatest influence in the early days of the EC, when the structures were established, and that French influences are still seen. Other influences can also be seen – the European Ombudsman for example is influenced by Nordic models. The relatively recently created Ombudsman (set up in 1994) is a good example of how the EU is making efforts at bringing its administration closer to the people. There are simple and understandable rules and guidelines on how to complain to the Ombudsman, the procedure is not complex, the findings are published in an accessible manner and generally the Ombudsman is there to help ordinary people gain access to the Union and what it means for them. Even with the limited powers of the Ombudsman, the role is not insignificant in this context.

When it comes to a Union apparatus to implement EC/EU law, this was never foreseen as such. One of the special elements of the Community was that it would rely on the Member States for the implementation of the supranational policies and rules of the EC, later also EU, rather than build up a bureaucracy of its own for the implementation. This is a truth with some modification, as there apart from the EU institutions are also several different bodies at the EU level that have tasks similar to that of administrative organs of states. These European agencies deal with many different matters, such as environment, training, drugs and drug addiction, trade marks, health and safety at work, etc. The rules governing the agencies are made for each agency separately, there are several organisational similarities but no special body of rules to regulate European agencies, their function and standing, the hierarchy or relationship with national bodies. Indeed, this depends on the specific situation and tasks of each agency. Generally, the European agencies operate in co-operation and co-ordination with relevant national agencies rather than in a strict hierarchical relationship with them. Although a study of these agencies will show several interesting examples of how to structure administrative agencies, there is no general body of law for such agencies for others to imitate and apply. Rather there will be different models for how the general principles can be brought into play in the daily activities of the agencies.    

Apart from EU internal rules and those of the agencies, there are also some rules of an administrative character of more general interest. One of the more important ones, is the provision in Article 253 EC (former Article 190) on giving reasons for decisions. This provision has influenced administrative procedures in the Member States, as there was not a universal understanding that reasons had to be given in all the Member States, for example it was a new feature in the UK. Stating reasons for decisions and acts is an important ”service” to the public. It makes it easier to understand, to question and if relevant to challenge the decision and makes decsion-making more clear and transparent. 

3.	Capacity for Implementing EC/EU law

Even if there is not an important body of EC administrative law, the impact of the upcoming EU enlargement on administrative reform in Central and Eastern Europe is undeniably very important. The upcoming EU enlargement differs in many ways from previous enlargements. It is much larger than previous enlargements and the difference between the applicant states compared with existing member states is perhaps greater (at least in some cases). Another way in which the enlargement is different is in the long transition and preparation periods imposed on the candidate states, during which they must already to a large extent harmonise their laws and systems following demands from the EU, to prove the readiness to join so that they will be more or less completely prepared to be members once they do join. Also the fact that the EU is actively assisting the candidate states to prepare for membership is new for this enlargement. This is done through e.g. the Phare programme and through inviting the candidate states to take part in structural funds and other programmes before accession. There are active attempts at transfer of knowledge and experience from EU member states and the EU as such to the candidate countries, to assist them in reaching the high standards that the EU is posing for them.  The EU system is construed in many ways around the notion that member states trust one-another and each-others ability to perform certain functions, so also for this reason, EU membership does require functioning administrative systems even if there is no specific acquis communautarie in this area. The nature of the EC/EU, with national bodies, national administrations, implementing the common body of law makes it crucial that Member States do feel confidence in the administration of each other. If you relinquish the right to take a decision, control something or issue a licence, you must feel that the end result will not suffer by this being done by someone else – the citizens will be as safe, the environment as clean and trade function as well as if you had done it yourself. This importance of trust must not be underestimated.   

One of the so-called Copenhagen criteria established at the Copenhagen European Council meeting in 1993, is that a state must have the administrative and judicial structures to implement the acquis communautaire. Apart from this direct requirement, it is also inherent in other criteria such as the stability of democratic institutions, which shall guarantee the rule of law (and protection of minorities) and the capacity to assume the rights and obligations of the acquis communautaire. 

The development in the candidate countries of the administrative capacity for effective enforcement and implementation of all the requirements of the acquis communautaire, is maybe the most difficult of the demands, as it is a background to all other implementation. The difficulty comes not just from the fact that it takes time and effort to create the required capacity, but also from the fact that it may be hard to measure when sufficient capacity has been built up. At conferences on the issue, the problems of measuring progress are often touched upon – as it is tempting but incorrect to presume that spending more money and making new laws is sufficient. The empowerment and accountability of the different instances in the administrative system are indeed as important as are also incentives and control mechanisms to ensure compliance. In the sphere of general as well as special administrative law, well functioning institutions that fulfil demands of a modern democratic state based on the rule of law are needed not just to be allowed to ”join the club” and become an EU member, but even more for a state to be able to assume the responsibilities of such membership.

In many areas covered by EC/EU law, there are technical specifications and standards, of the EU or even global ones, that states have to implement and ensure if they are to take part in the global society. This makes the task of evaluating the states’ compliance a bit easier, as there are clear yardsticks against which to measure the states and their performance. Such clear yardsticks do not exist for the provision of administrative and other public services. Measuring against a specific EU state or against some conglomeration of states is hardly possible either, and maybe not even suitable, as national characteristics must be respected. At the same time, experiences of others in how to bring down the fine principles to workable rules on the ground, should help those who now have to design their systems. Determining how to best transfer knowledge to other states is not an easy task and the various EU and other projects battle not only with internal overly bureaucratic procedures, but also and more fundamentally with the question of how to disseminate knowledge and share experiences in a way which is genuinely useful for the recipient states.

4.	General Principles of  Good Administration

The background and rationale for the general principles of good administration are to be found in principles of human rights. The importance of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which is in force for almost all European states, is paramount in this context. The ECHR and the system for its implementation and the relating case law mean that there is a harmonisation of the basic human rights and how they are pronounced between most European states. This has lead to a certain approximation also of administrative law and related systems in the contracting states of the ECHR, even if the ECHR is not primarily an administrative law document. Rules on access to courts, on freedom of information, on protection of family life, on the right to property in Protocol 1 and other provisions have influenced administrative systems in many states.  

There are many ways of expressing what the principles of good administration are and there is no one final list. Public administration should function according to the law, under principles of legal certainty and proportionality, protection of legitimate expectations, defence of legal rights, non-discrimination, right of appeal of administrative decisions, ensuring of just treatment of all and constitutional responsibility of public administration. For regulatory authorities in different fields, the notions of objectivity, transparency and non-discrimination are very important and always stressed in EU documents related to the work of regulatory agencies. Regulatory agencies are especially important when services are carried out by the private sector, as the agency then becomes the means for the state to control the services. This list of good principles can be made longer or be formulated in different ways. These different elements, if applied, contribute to giving access to administration and the tasks and services it performs on an equal basis. It is not negative but on the contrary beneficial that the list of what is good administration is open and flexible, as it can then grow and change with changes in the services provided.  

Good administration is an element of a state based on the rule of law. A state based on the rule of law is a well-known notion and most commentators would know more or less what they understand by this, without necessarily having a totally clear definition of all that it includes. One key concept is that government or other organs of administration cannot interfere in administrative matters involving citizens other than based on law and in the framework given by the law. This principle is often not totally clearly stated in the Constitution or laws of a country even if it is considered an important principle – it more takes the role of a guiding principle than a concrete norm as such even if it has the character of both. Other elements of the state ruled by the rule of law is the principle of legality (meaning a legal basis for legal and administrative intervention), the generality and coherence of laws and their proper promulgation, etc. The separation of powers and a control power independent from the executive one are other such elements of the rule of law. Basically, the notion consist of various elements that characterise a functioning state based on equality and security for the citizens – something the organs of a state have to achieve even if the steps how to do this in all situations is not something that the law can prescribe in detail. 

Equality as a guiding light in the design of public administration and public services is very important. This does not intend to deny that people are not factually and actually equal in most situations – the inequalities are irrelevant for the purpose of political representation in the liberal and democratic way of looking upon things. The idea of equality may require not just rules on equal treatment but in some cases one may have to go further to rules to bring about the equality of arms, meaning that both sides should be able to have equal chances which often  may mean boosting the chances of the weaker party – the individual. The European Court of Human Rights pays attention to the principle of equality of arms in that it looks beyond only formal rules to identify if there is also such equality, a precondition for successful implementation of provisions intended to Secure the rights of individuals. This may at times also mean that there may be a need for rules on equalling-up the situation like different ways of positive discrimination or different benefits to weak groups.  

Among the principles agreed by most to be part of the common European principles and norms more specifically for administration are items such as legal competence, professionalism, non-discrimination, fairness,  proportionality, timeliness,  openness and transparency, administrative discretion with accountability, efficiency and effectiveness. In connection with all of this, a good legal structure for the civil service is essential. Co-operation between different organisations and levels of an organisation are also very important for the provisions of public services. All of these principles make up an intricate web, where one thing is dependent on another for the final result to be that the individual feels secure in having access to the services he or she needs without discrimination. 

Principles like these may look very general, like nice words without very much substance. But the importance of such principles should still not be disregarded. Of course it is not as if public officials or other providers of service in well-functioning and developed states constantly go around and consciously think about fine principles like this. But it is probably the case that for many of them such principles do form the background against which the work is done. This can be achieved through training as well as through control (preferably through ”soft” measures like transparency) and the use of both these mechanisms must be proportionate. A feeling of empowerment, possibility to affect the situation is very important.  Decentralisation of services and administration as well as subsidiarity: bringing the administration as such as well as the decisions closer to those concerned by them, are important elements of reform in Central and Eastern Europe, with the often very centralised administrations of the Communist era. 

5.	Increasing the Status of Public Administration

One important element when discussing the public sector and public administration in Central and Eastern Europe is the relatively low status of the sector in the eyes of the public and especially the young. This is shown not least in the educational choices of young people, who are very interested in economy and especially areas such as marketing, business law for law students, and so on. If it is impossible to attract people to the sector, it is of course also very difficult to improve it. 

One important tool in the struggle to make administration efficient and also against corruption is that the status of the public sector work is such that individuals do not have any interest in not following the rules. The remuneration of civil servants and other public functionaries is important for different reasons. Better paid jobs tend to get a better status and attract more qualified people, not just for the money as such but also for the status of the job as illustrated by the salary in a sort of circular argument.  A person in a well-paid job may have more incentives not to risk this job by accepting bribes and other illegal payments and will also presumably be in less need of such payments, if he or she can easily live on the regular salary. Money is however, as always, not everything. That individuals in different positions in the public administration are sufficiently empowered and accountable also increases the status of the administration. Being responsible for your work and the results of it give important and tangible reasons for individuals to assume responsibility and interest.

Training is crucial in increasing the status of public administration. The internationalisation of the profession is important to increase the interest among especially young and qualified people. In this context, exchange with other European states and with the EU institutions can be an important element.  To see examples from other states is always useful, not least as there are plenty of examples of high status and attraction of the public sector in a way that differs from most Central and East European states. In France, the pubic administration has a strong position and status, historically and still. The large degree of discretion of the officials, their feeling of importance in their roles, may help to explain this and may provide ideas to implement elsewhere.

In some ways the increasing of the status of public administration is a chicken and egg situation: The administration in developing democracies is often seen with scepticism and even suspicion by people in general, which means that it is not a choice employer for the most qualified people, which in turn means that it is difficult to improve its image. The fact that it is difficult to interest young qualified people for public administration work is no reason not to attempt to do it however – EU membership of candidate countries may change this a bit by itself, as the status of EU jobs is generally high and these posts are attractive in many different ways. The way to them leads mainly through national administrations, which adds an attraction to this. With more exchange with other EU states, it will also become more apparent to citizens of Central and East European States that public sector jobs in many countries are very prestigious and have a high status. When the initial post-Communist fascination with the private sector only wears off, a different perception may well appear.
 
6.	The Importance of Legislation

The issues discussed in this paper cover both legislative and regulatory activities and other elements for the functioning of administration. In some cases maybe even the question can be asked if how to make public administration and public services accessible to people is a legal question at all. Laws in themselves do not solve anything. But when criticising excessive efforts of lawmaking and law approximation one should not lose sight of the importance of laws either. For a person seeking access to a service, to be able to rely on a law clearly detailing the conditions for such access and to avoid discrimination, will be of utmost importance. With that law in your hand, you can point to something in order to get your right. Over time, legal precedents will be developed to show cases of discrimination, of permitted difference in treatment, etc. Such experience and basis cannot be imported from outside, although in the absence of this which takes some time to build up, experiences from other states and especially the norms common to states help to provide guidance.

Laws banning discrimination often take on a momentum of their own after some time. The banned action becomes more and more rare, not just (as maybe at first) for the fear of litigation, but as the ”new model” prescribed by the law gains acceptance and becomes the norm after a certain period. In some cases laws are directly needed. Criminalising corruption in its different forms is an example of one such issue. International efforts in combating corruption as one important element aim at ensuring that such activities are indeed criminalised at all levels and in an effective fashion. Setting out in a law what amounts to corruption is equally important. 

When talking about the need for laws, the constitutions should be mentioned. Constitutions must provide the proper setting for a good administration and outline the basic rights, even if it would be unusual for a constitution to go in any detail on administrative matters. But the importance of the proper constitutional basis cannot be forgotten even so. Issues of centralisation versus decentralisation, the administrative structures and such matters are often also directly regulated in the constitution.

Excess formality in laws and rules is not beneficial to the successful administration of public services, but at the same time some – carefully managed – formality may be very useful and actually reduce negative aspects of bureaucracy. In connection with access to documents, the formalities surrounding what is a decisions, how a decision must be made, issued and published etc are rules that may at first look just formalistic but that in fact provide a service to the individuals by making it clear what the decision is so that it may be challenged, questioned, appealed etc. Clear and simple appeals procedures are good examples of procedural rules that have a great importance for the functioning of administration, through the control function they help insure. 

Regulatory agencies for different services (telecommunications, broadcasting, railways, other transport, etc) provide examples of how and why legislation is needed in the interplay between the private and the public sector. The regulatory agency which should be independent from operators and which can be more or less independent from the government, is the body that the individual operators and users have their contact with. This body must be able to operate in an efficient manner, specifically designed for the field it regulates with due regard to technology, specificities of the market, etc, but must at the same time provide full legal guarantees.
 
7.	Transfer of Knowledge

The administrative structures and also other elements of administrative law in many cases rely on long traditions and are influenced by historical developments that may not have so much to do with only the matter at hand but rather with general historical events and national traditions. Such traditions may keep their relevance to a greater or lesser degree even when the state goes through important changes, like the Central and Eastern European states currently. In the context of a transfer of knowledge and an incorporation of models from other countries (or from the EU) such traditions must be known and respected – even if they may in some cases have to be modified. The organisational structure in a state is one such element which often is based on old traditions and which may not at all need to change completely in order to be reformed. Respecting this is the first recipe for a successful transfer of knowledge.     

One thing to keep in mind when transferring knowledge is that exercise of authority and provision of services is carried out by people. One of the elements of a well-functioning state ruled by the rule of law, is that the identity of the individual people is not what determines success or failure of public administration. This is due to various things: the individuals are chosen so that there professionalism and competence is ensured, there are mechanisms in the system to see if any mistakes are made, corruption as well as incompetence are unlikely as there is transparency and accountability all through the system. Even so, or differently put – to achieve this, training of individuals and keeping the trained individuals is crucial. Strategic and managerial skills of core staff is essential and gets all the more essential as administration develops. To get good people to administrative positions the job must be perceived to be rewarding and interesting. The line between a good functioning network of contacts and corruption or exercise of undue influence is never very marked. In fear to appear subject to corruption, there is a tendency in certain Central and East European Countries to avoid also such personal relations which may be beneficial for the work. At the same time, it may take not just years of experience of the individuals but also a very well functioning organisational environment for networks and contacts to work without crossing the line to where there is at least a perception of undue influence. This is extremely important for the issue of access to services and must be taken into account in the process of transfer of knowledge. 

Policy transfer as a phenomena has become increasingly common based on many different but interlinked considerations. The globalisation and internationalisation naturally means that there will be more areas in which there is a need or at least a rationale for similar and compatible rules in different countries, which means that states that have come further in a certain field will have developed systems and structures, which with benefit may be adapted to other states, rather than those states starting from the beginning. Establishment of regulatory agencies for e.g. communications and energy are such examples. The important developments in democratisation of many states recently and the ensuing need for new democratic legislation and systems respecting the rule of law, are other examples. Policy transfer should not be a straight forward incorporation of laws of one state into another, but a way of analysing with the specific situation of the state at hand as a basis, how examples of others may be used to facilitate the process. 

There are a number of issues of a practical nature to be considered in connection with transfer of knowledge in donor funded projects or otherwise. Even if the nature of these issues is practical-logistical, their impact may be considerable for the success of the knowledge transfer. The experts who do the training and transfer of knowledge must really be experts, must have the knowledge to transfer. It is also important not to fall into the trap of just trying to present the model of one state and expect it to fit to the state into which it should be transferred. Rather than using specific country models, it is important to stick to fundamentals, to present principles, models – such elements that can successfully be taken over by another state with a different background and different system. Sometimes whole institutions and issues can be exported (the institution of the Ombudsman is one such example, where even the Swedish name has been incorporated into most languages) but not even in these cases without adaptation to the situation at hand (again the Ombudsman is a good example – the multitude of forms in which it exists).

An open approach to models and principles allows for these to be implemented in different legal systems and contexts. If concentrating in the transfer of knowledge on the why rather than just the how, there is a good possibility that the result will be applicable to the environment it is currently in. 

8.	The Access to the Services – Some Concluding Reflections 

Even without clear rules that one could easily list on what constitutes good administration, accessible to all equally, and without a blueprint how to achieve this, one can still mention various elements of such an administration or how it could be achieved. Dangers in the access to services include corruption, inefficiency and discrimination. There are various means of achieving the good and avoiding the bad.

The institute of the Ombudsman is one way of trying to overcome the dangers, by giving people easy access to procedures for complaining, bringing their views, etc. The creation of simple, understandable and transparent complaints procedures is another important element of a functioning  system. The Ombudsman and the court-based system for control should complement each-other. An Ombudsman can normally act in an inquisitorial way rather than just the adversarial way of working of the courts, the Ombudsmen have powers of investigation and often of starting cases on their own accord. They may have other means than just complaints procedures and problem solving at their disposal, namely the possibility to make recommendations and use ”soft law” to a greater extent.  This greater flexibility of the Ombudsman as compared to courts, is one of its important features and one of the reasons that Ombudsmen more often than not are seen to be effective and efficient, even if often lacking in strong enforcement powers.

Freedom of and access to information are other elements of importance for the individuals in getting access to public administration. It has a much wider implication that just getting access to some documents as such. Openness also provides a means to prevent corruption and to improve efficiency. Sweden is unsurprisingly brought out as the example in relation to openness – even if an example that admittedly it is not necessarily easy to follow or transpose to other countries, as the Swedish system is so special. The principle of public access to documents – that everything is publicly available if not otherwise decided – dates from the 18th century and has very strong constitutional guarantees. The introduction of such near-total openness to countries without this tradition may be difficult and a gradual process easier to implement. This is seen not least in the EU, where there has been a gradual development of the policy of openness and access to documents. Even with openness as a goal it is not wrong to give civil servants and administration time to get used to near-total openness, which in Sweden has been a regular feature of administration for several hundred years. With openness follows other requirements, many of which should be implemented as much as possible even if the total openness is introduced gradually. The importance of keeping registers is one such item – again we see how a rule which may seem technical and of less general importance in fact is a precondition for application of an important principle. The definition of what documents are covered, practical possibilities for having access to documents and procedural rules to make it as simple as possible are other prerequisites. New technologies must be taken into account and electronic resources mean both that access can be made simpler and that new legal issues must be taken into account. For systems now in the process of development, such new issues can be a feature form the start.  

Apart from these well-known means of providing access, various countries have also tried different more imaginative ways of making the public administration and public services more accessible as well as efficient. In Portugal, something called Citizens’ Shops (Lojas dos Cidadaos) have been established, inspired by a Brazilian idea. This means that several public services are concentrated in a single building whose management follows private sector type ideas as concerns how the services are delivered, opening times, etc. This is a way of avoiding bureaucratisation, making services faster and more accessible and is an example of a method of improving access which is not necessarily done primarily through legislation.  

For an effective and efficient as well as fair public administration, accessible to the people, there must be a rational division of competencies with a clear definition of responsibility, clear rules on accountability and effective co-ordination between different levels and different functions. A professional civil service, effective management, control and audit of public finances as well as rules on public procurement are all ingredients in the optimal public administration.  Subsidiarity, the principle so popular in discussions about the EU, has a role also in national public administrations. Decisions should not be taken at a higher level than what is needed – also this contributes to empowerment and accountability.

There are no Supermodels in the sphere of public administration and how to provide public services. There are a  lot of good ideas and important principles, based on human rights, general principles of law (such as proportionality, legal certainty, transparency and non-discrimination) and other important considerations. But the creation of a free, fair and accessible public sector is something which by necessity must consist of combination of legislative work to provide strong legal guarantees, proper complaints and control mechanisms, the strengthening of the civil service and its status, and practical measures in the sphere of the services as such. There are examples from European best practice, from other states and from the EU, that need to be adapted to each state in question.  

List of sources

Akkermans, P.W.C. ”Rule of Law, Rechtsstaat et droit de l’homme. Clef de voute de la démocratie”. Revue Européene de Droit Public, vol. 13, no. 1, printemps 2001, pp 53-67.

Chiti, E. ”The Emergence of a Community Administration: The Case of European Agencies”. Common Market Law Review 37, 2000 (Kluwer) pp 309-343.

Curtin D. M. ”Citizens’ Fundamental right of access to EU information: Am evolving digital passepartout?”. Common Market Law Review 37, 2000, pp 7-41.

Dewry, G. ”The Ombudsman: Parochial Stopgap or Global Panacea?”. In Leyland, P. and Woods, T. Administrative Law Facing the Future  (1997) pp 83-106.

Dobrovoljec, D.; Nyman-Metcalf, K. ”Enlargement of the European Union – a Regatta with moving goal posts?”. European Journal of Law Reform, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2001 (Kluwer) pp 131-147

Dyrberg P. ”Current Issues in the Debate on Public Access to Documents”. European Law Review (1999) 24 (Sweet & Maxwell) pp 157-170.

Ferraz Esteves de Araújo, J.F.  ”Improving Public Service Delivery: The Crossroads between NPM (New Public Management) and Traditional Bureaucracy”. Public Administration Vol. 79. No 4 2001 (Blackwell) pp 915-932. 

Gjerloeff Bonnor, P. ”The European Ombudsman: a novel source of soft law in the European Union”.  European Law Review 25 2000 (Sweet & Maxwell) pp 39-56

Hesse, J.J.”From Transformation to Modernization: Administrative Change in Central and Eastern Europe”. In Hesse, J.J. and Toonen, T.A.J. (eds) The European Yearbook of Comparative Government and Public Administration, Vol. I/1994 pp 439- 481. 

Lord Lester of Herne Hill ”Equality and United Kingdom Law: Past, Present and Future”. Public Law, Spring 2001 (Sweet & Maxwell), pp 77-96.

Nicolaides, P; Den Teuling A-M ”Summary of conference proceedings – The Enlargement of the European Union: Prerequisites for successful conclusion of Accession Negotiations”. EIPASCOPE, European Institute of Public Administration, No 2001/1 pp 21-23.

Österdahl, I. ”Openness v. Secrecy: Public Access to Documents in Sweden and the European Union”. European Law Review (1998) 23 (Sweet & Maxwell) pp 336- 356.

Pecar, Z ”Performance Analysis and Policy Transfer as Preconditions of Successful PA Reform in Slovenia”. In NISPAcee Occasional Papers Vol. II, No. 4, Autumn 2001, pp 27-42.

”Proposal for an European Parliament and Council Directive on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States”, COM (2001) 257 final, Brussels 23.5.2001. 

Ragnemalm, H. ”Är den europeiska förvaltningsrätten bättre än vår?”. Förvaltningsrättslig tidskrift 5-6 ’00, årg 63, 2000 häfte 5-6 (Lund) pp 135-144. 

Schwarze, J. (ed.) Administrative Law under European Influence London (1986). London, Sweet & Maxwell.

Schwarze, J. ”The Convergence of the Administrative Laws of the EU Member States”. European Public Law Vol. 4, Issue 2 (Kluwer) pp 191- 210.

Sigma Papers No. 27 of November 1999 ”European Principles for Public Administration” CCNM/SIGMA/PUMA(99)44/REV1.

Voskomp, J.  ”An Invisible Pillar of the European Union” in EIPASCOPE 2001/3 (EIPA’s 20th Anniversary), pp 9-10.