Alleged failure properly to deal with an infringement complaint

Available languages: bg.es.cs.da.de.et.el.en.fr.ga.it.lv.lt.hu.mt.nl.pl.pt.ro.sk.sl.fi.sv
  • Case: 0773/2011/OV
    Opened on 12 Apr 2011 - Decision on 18 Jan 2012
  • Institution(s) concerned: European Commission
  • Field(s) of law: Freedom of movement for workers and social policy
  • Types of maladministration alleged – (i) breach of, or (ii) breach of duties relating to: Lawfulness (incorrect application of substantive and/or procedural rules) [Article 4 ECGAB],Reasonable time-limit for taking decisions [Article 17 ECGAB]
  • Subject matter(s): The Commission as Guardian of the treaty: Article 258 of the TFEU (ex Article 226 of the EC Treaty)
EU map
Author:
Copyright: Stocklib © Stephen Finn

Summary of the decision on complaint 773/2011/OV against the European Commission

The complainant, who is a German citizen married to a Lebanese citizen, submitted an infringement complaint to the Commission in January 2008 alleging that the United Kingdom had infringed Article 5(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. He based his complaint on the fact that the United Kingdom required his wife to apply for a visa before entering the United Kingdom.

In March 2011, the complainant complained to the Ombudsman alleging that the Commission had not appropriately dealt with his infringement complaint. He argued that nothing had been done with his complaint for a period of three years (he stated that the only substantive reply he had received from the Commission was a letter of 14 April 2008).

In its reply to the Ombudsman, the Commission explained the various steps it had taken with regard to the complaint. These included sending a letter of formal notice to the United Kingdom authorities in June 2011. The Commission also gave an overview of a total of nine letters it had sent to the complainant between April 2008 and September 2011.

The Ombudsman found that, contrary to the complainant's statements, the Commission had not remained inactive with regard to the handling of the infringement complaint and had sent several substantive replies to the complainant. The Ombudsman considered that no further inquiries into the complaint were justified.