In a pretty park in the European quarter of Brussels is situated the local base of an institution that should be better known to lawyers, since it can provide recourse to clients. The world may be filling up with ombudsmen, but the granddaddy of them all (in European terms) is the European Ombudsman.

I met him recently - the current postholder is a Greek academic in political and social science, P Nikiforos Diamandouros, who was also the first National Ombudsman of Greece from 1998 to 2003, and has been European Ombudsman since April 2003. He was re-elected for a second term in 2010.

The European Ombudsman should become better known in the UK, since the UK is at the bottom of the league table of usage of his services, based on our population size. It is strange that this should be the case, since the UK has the densest network of its own ombudsman schemes in the EU - and probably the world - and so we are used to their existence. And euroscepticism does not answer it, since you would have thought a eurosceptic population would be the first to complain about maladministration in the EU institutions and bodies, which is the ombudsman’s remit. Part of this may be due to ignorance - the ombudsman said that on a recent visit to the UK, he was surprised that senior judges were completely unaware of his services - but why should the UK be more ignorant about him than anywhere else?

Curiously, lawyers do not make many complaints on behalf of their clients. This may be because citizens can complain directly themselves, or because lawyers do not consider such a complaint as part of their usual services. Or, worse, it might be because of the ignorance just mentioned. At any rate, the ombudsman says that complaints coming from lawyers tend to be more complicated and interesting, raising issues which create precedents and policy changes. He cited two by way of example.

The first concerned the gigantic US microchip company, Intel, which was represented by a large US law firm. It had argued that the commission failed to take minutes of a meeting with a senior Dell executive, even though the meeting directly concerned the subject matter of the commission’s anti-trust investigation of Intel. It argued that this infringed its rights of defence. The ombudsman, after an in-depth investigation, found the following: that the meeting did concern the subject matter of the commission investigation; that the commission did not make a proper note of that meeting, and that its investigation file did not include the agenda of the meeting; and that this constituted maladministration.

He did not, however, make any finding as to whether the commission had infringed Intel’s rights of defence. But you can see how the ombudsman’s finding could be a powerful tool in a particular case.

The second instance, which is more recent, concerns the hot topic of languages. The EU is caught in a wonderful double-bind. On the one hand it promotes multi-lingualism, the equality of all languages in Europe, and the ability of citizens to use their own language when engaging with the EU - all noble aims. On the other hand, it does not have the money and nor are there available translators (think Maltese), to convert these noble aims into practice. Even if it had the money and translators, translation into all languages holds up initiatives - I work in an organisation where we use just two languages, English and French, and not the EU’s 23 official languages, and I can testify to the delays caused by just two.

A Spanish lawyer complained that a public consultation on financial sector taxation was published only in English, French and German. He was lucky that it was in three languages - indeed, he also submitted other examples of consultations which were published just in English, including on a new partnership to help small and medium-sized enterprises, on the reduction in the use of plastic bags, and on the freedom of movement for workers. The lawyer argued that the commission’s language policy was arbitrary and contrary to the principles of openness, good administration and non-discrimination.

Not surprisingly, the commission defended itself on the basis of time constraints and available resources. The ombudsman did not accept these arguments. He shared the lawyer’s view that European citizens cannot be expected to participate in a consultation which they are unable to understand. He concluded that the commission’s restrictive language policy constitutes maladministration and called on the institution to publish its public consultation documents in all 23 EU languages or to provide translations upon request.

As you would expect, many of the complaints filed do not fall within the ombudsman’s rather narrow remit of maladministration, and so are inadmissible (lawyer-led complaints have a higher rate of admissibility). Often, the ombudsman refers complainants back to national ombudsman schemes, which have the necessary competence. This helps him offer at least some support to inadmissible complaints. As a result, a network of national organisations has been established - the European Network of Ombudsmen, consisting of over 90 offices in 32 European countries, including national and regional ombudsmen, and similar bodies of the member states and other European countries. The network was established in 1996 and has developed into a tool for ombudsmen and their staff, promoting co-operation in case handling. Experiences and best practice are shared via seminars and meetings, and there exist also a regular newsletter, an electronic discussion forum and a daily electronic news service.

So, you cannot complain any more that you know nothing about it. The European Ombudsman might just provide the perfect remedy for that client for whom there is no other solution.

Jonathan Goldsmith is secretary general of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, which represents about one million European lawyers through its member bars and law societies. He blogs weekly for the Gazette on European affairs.