Handling of a complaint concerning the development of an industrial harbour in Spain

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: OI/2/2006/JMA
    Opened on 27 Jan 2006 - Decision on 24 Oct 2006
  • Institution(s) concerned: European Commission
  • Field(s) of law: Environment, consumers and health protection
  • 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]

Summary of decision following own-initiative inquiry OI/2/2006/JMA

Having received a very large number of complaints and other communications concerning the development of an industrial harbour by the Spanish authorities in the city of Granadilla, on the island of Tenerife, Spain, the Ombudsman decided to open an own-initiative inquiry in order to give the Commission an opportunity to explain its role as guardian of the Treaty in this case.

According to the complainants, the Commission had decided to close its inquiry into a number of complaints concerning the development of an industrial harbour in Granadilla on the basis that the development would not be contrary to Community law, in particular Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive[1]. The complainants argued, in general terms, that the Commission had failed to consider the existence of possible alternative solutions to the proposed development.

The Commission argued that its services were still assessing the project. The Commission explained that, since the presence or absence of alternatives to the project was a relevant issue that would have an influence on its final opinion pursuant to Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, the Commission would thoroughly consider this aspect of the case and deliver an opinion that should assess the environmental impact, the relevance of the "imperative reasons" advanced by the Spanish authorities in favour of the development, and the balance between these two opposing interests, as well as an evaluation of the compensation measures. The Commission also underlined that it was taking all the necessary measures to reach a decision as soon as possible, and that it would inform the complainants.

The Ombudsman took the view that the Commission's opinion had adequately clarified the points raised in his inquiry. In particular, the Commission had not yet taken a decision on the matter. Accordingly, the Ombudsman concluded that no further inquiries were needed. The Ombudsman also pointed out that, once the Commission takes a decision, or if its decision were to be unduly delayed, citizens and residents could submit complaints to him if they considered that there had been an instance of maladministration on the part of the Commission.

 

[1] Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ 1996 L 59, p. 63.