Strasbourg, 4 May 2005

Dear Mr V.,

On 24 March 2004, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman on behalf of the European Citizen Action Service (ECAS) concerning the alleged failure of the Commission to inform and consult NGOs on the future of the Structural Funds. On 5 and 20 April 2004, you sent further information concerning your complaint.

On 27 April 2004, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission. On 3 May 2004, you had a telephone conversation with my office concerning the first allegation of your complaint. The Commission sent its opinion on 29 July 2004. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 4 November 2004. On 8 November 2004, your assistant sent a copy of ECAS' report "The Illusion of Inclusion".

On 26 November 2004, I received an e-mail with comments on the Commission's opinion from the Regional Policy Officer of RSPB (BirdLife International). The e-mail was registered under the reference number of your complaint.

In telephone conversations of 1 and 22 March 2005, my office informed you and your assistant that your case was still under investigation and that you would soon be informed of the Ombudsman's decision in your case.

I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the relevant facts are as follows:

On 9 January 2004, the complainant wrote to the Secretary General of the Commission with two requests, namely 1) on the basis of Regulation 1049/2001/EC(1), to receive a copy of the Third Commission report on Cohesion policies, before its adoption, and 2) on the basis of the Commission Communication COM(2002)704 final of 11 December 2002 concerning the minimum standards for consultation(2), to receive a copy of the consultation plan on the future of the Structural Funds. The complainant's letter was acknowledged, but no reply was received within the deadline foreseen by Regulation 1049/2001/EC. The complainant therefore made a confirmatory application on 8 March 2004.

As no reply was received, the complainant complained to the Ombudsman on 24 March 2004. He stated that the complaint concerns the way in which the Regulation on access to documents and the minimum standards on consultation of NGOs are applied. In this context, the complainant referred to the Commission Communication COM(2002)704 final of 11 December 2002 concerning the standards for minimum consultation. The complainant underlined the particular importance of informing and hearing NGOs as widely as possible on the future of the Structural Funds, and stressed that there are issues on which NGOs in all EU Member States should be consulted. So far there has been a serious imbalance in the European cohesion debate between the involvement of regional authorities on the one hand and NGOs and local community development interests on the other hand.

In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant provides further details by setting out three "requests" to the European Ombudsman:

Firstly, on the minimum standards for consultation of NGOs, the complainant's objective is that the European Ombudsman's role as an external body to which an appeal can be made should be recognised. Citizens should be informed of this role as in the case of access to documents. In its Communication COM(2002)704 final on the standards for minimum consultation, the Commission rejects the views of those, like the complainant, who wanted a legally-binding approach including the possibility of appeal to the Court of First Instance.

Secondly, the Ombudsman should ascertain whether the minimum standards are sufficiently clear, and whether the Commission's traditionally sectoral approach to consultation should be supplemented by a more cross-sectoral and holistic one, particularly when its proposals have an impact on a wide range of interests. In his letter to the Commission asking for access to the documents, the complainant raised the question of whether the white paper on European governance, by foreseeing separate procedures for consulting regional authorities and civil society, had not overlooked cases such as the future of the structural funds which concerned both groups. The Commission document lays down general principles such as "participation" and "coherence", which certainly imply a far more inclusive approach.

Thirdly, the Ombudsman should support the complainant's request that the Commission put forward a consultation plan covering points A to E of the minimum standards and redress the current imbalance by consulting NGOs before the legislative proposals on the structural funds are put forward.

On the basis of the above, the complainant's allegations can be summarised as follows:

1) The Commission has failed to respect the deadlines set out in Regulation 1049/2001/EC.

2) The Commission had failed to consult NGOs on the future of the Structural Funds.

The complainant indicated in his complaint that other organisations may wish to be associated with this complaint or that the Ombudsman may hear from them directly.

On 5 April 2004, the complainant sent an e-mail to ECAS members and to colleagues of other European associations to inform them that a complaint had been made to the Ombudsman about "failure of the Commission to release documents and consult NGO's on the future of the Structural Funds". In this e-mail, the complainant also pointed out that the complaint, previous letters to the Commission and a report were available on ECAS' website http://www.ecas.org.

On 20 April 2004, the complainant sent to the Ombudsman a copy of two letters, namely a letter of 31 March 2004 from the Secretary General of the Commission to the complainant, and a reply of 20 April 2004 from the complainant to the Secretary General. In his letter of 31 March 2004, the Secretary General of the Commission regretted that, because of a technical problem, the complainant's letter of 9 January 2004 had never reached the responsible department, and apologised for the fact that he had not received a reply to that letter. The Secretary General further informed the complainant that the requested report had been published in the meantime and was accessible on the website of DG Regional Policy, and that therefore the confirmatory application has become devoid of purpose. As regards the complainant's second request, the Secretary General argued that the Commission has enabled all interested parties to make their views known well in advance of the adoption of the third Cohesion report and has acted in accordance with the minimum standards as laid down in its communication of 11 December 2002 COM(2002)704 final.

In his reply of 20 April 2004 to the Secretary General, the complainant observed that, in the light of the explanation and apology for the way the original request for access to documents was handled, ECAS would be prepared to accept this issue as settled, subject to any observations of the Ombudsman. As regards the second request, the complainant observed that it had not been met by the Commission. The complainant was particularly concerned that a more balanced cross-sectoral application of the minimum standards on consultation should be applied by the Commission.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

As regards the first allegation, the Commission observed that the complainant's request of 9 January 2004 for access to the draft third Cohesion report was registered by the Secretariat General on 16 January 2004 and forwarded by virtual fax to DG REGIO. Because of a technical problem, the complainant's request was not properly assigned and dealt with. The Secretary General of the Commission apologised to the complainant on this point in his letter of 31 March 2004 in which he replied to the complainant's confirmatory application of 8 March 2004. On 20 April 2004, the complainant replied to this letter acknowledging that his confirmatory application had become devoid of purpose in as much as the cohesion report had since become public.

As regards the second allegation, the Commission observed that, when it adopted the Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion in January 2001, it highlighted the question of the future of cohesion policy. In conjunction with the adoption of this report, the Commission launched a broad consultation of all partners, interest groups, associations and potential beneficiaries of cohesion policy. The major event in this consultation process was the second Forum on Economic and Social Cohesion in May 2001.

Since then, a number of conferences, seminars and visits to the regions and the Member States have taken place at all levels in the departments responsible for structural policies.

On 15 May 2003, DG REGIO set up, on its internet site, a special area for debate on the future of cohesion policy. As a result, all interested parties had an opportunity to express their views in advance of the publication of the third report on Economic and Social Cohesion. The Commission also received hundreds of contributions, memoranda and opinions from Member States and regions, towns and cities, regional organisations, the social partners, NGOs and research institutes. The Member States were also consulted at ministerial level on a number of occasions at the informal Council meetings held in Namur, Chalkidiki, Rome and Portlaoise. In addition, ad hoc meetings took place with political leaders of regions and local authorities. A variety of associations and NGOs have had an opportunity to exchange their ideas at both political level and within the various departments.

On the basis of this consultation and its own analytical work, the Commission presented the Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, adopted in February 2004. The report lays down the position of the Commission, which constitutes the basis for any future regulatory action.

The final stage in the consultation process was the third Forum on Economic and Social Cohesion, which was held in May 2004 and was attended by some 1500 people. These included representatives of most of the beneficiaries, interest groups, associations and authorities with powers in the field of structural policies. It was also attended by NGOs like BirdLife International and WWF. The Commission takes the view that this forum effectively closes the external consultation phase for the drafting and adoption of future regulatory action concerning the Structural Funds. The Commission noted that the various NGOs and associations did not provide sufficient input in terms of expressing and defending their positions, including vis-à-vis other partners at local, regional and national levels. The Commission would welcome more input from NGOs, but this would mean that they should mobilise more effectively in the future.

The Commission thus believes that it has acted as transparently as possible in preparing this report and that it has complied with the minimum consultation standards as laid down in its communication of 11 December 2002, COM(2002)704 final.

The complainant's observations

The complainant made four comments on the Commission's opinion.

Firstly, the complainant welcomed the fact that the Commission appeared to accept at least tacitly the role of the European Ombudsman in taking up this complaint. The complainant interprets that failure to apply the standards correctly could be equivalent to maladministration and that therefore the institution would be answerable to the European Ombudsman. The Ombudsman might also, as he did in the case of access to documents, take the initiative of inviting other EU institutions and bodies to follow the Commission and establish their own standards of consultation.

The complainant secondly observed that there is no denying that there has been a debate about the future of EU cohesion policy, both in the Convention on the future of Europe and in the run-up to the presentation of the Third Cohesion Report. The question though remains whether all this is enough to claim that the minimum standards of consultation have been applied. The consultation process was begun before the minimum standards were approved and the Commission offers no explanation of how the standards once adopted influenced the rest of the process. The Commission has not produced a consultation plan. Whilst there is no denying that there were consultations, it is equally clear that they fell short of the minimum standards in a number of respects. The Commission admitted that NGOs did not provide sufficient input, despite the fact that the Communication of December 2002 states that "the overall rationale of this document is to ensure that all relevant parties are properly consulted". The complainant accepts that this is not easy, given the wide range of potentially interested actors and types of organisations at different geographical levels. If, however, the minimum standards had been properly applied, there would have been much more substantial input from civil society and NGOs in particular.

The complainant thirdly compared the consultations carried out by the Commission on EU Cohesion policy with the five minimum standards set out in the Commission's Communication. As regards the clear content of the consultation process, the complainant pointed out that, although the consultation process and DG REGIO's website were clear, they were designed with regional and local authorities in mind. It did not really appear that the views of NGOs were being asked for, and as a result they failed to respond. As regards the consultation target groups, the complainant sees no evidence that the Commission made a special effort to meet this standard with regard to NGOs. Since there was no special effort to identify the target groups to be reached, publicity on the consultation was limited to the DG REGIO website and there was no special invitation by letter or e-mail sent to European level NGOs, let alone a wider audience outside Brussels, to participate in the cohesion debate. The complainant sees no particular problems with the consultation process when it comes to time limits. It is also clear that it had some influence on the Commission's thinking and proposals, and that some feedback was provided. The problem is not the open and transparent way the debate was conducted but the fact that it was not sufficiently balanced and inclusive of civil society.

Finally, as regards wider implications, the complainant welcomed the fact that in its draft Regulation for the future of the Structural Funds (COM (2004)492 final), the Commission had proposed that civil society and NGOs should be included for the first time as partners to be consulted by Member States in drawing up the national strategic framework, and their programmes. This makes it all the more important that the Commission should itself have a consultation plan for the involvement of civil society in EU Cohesion policy, as a model to Member States. This is the main conclusion of a recent publication by ECAS on consultation of NGOs in the new Member States of Central and Eastern Europe about the EU's Structural Funds, entitled "The Illusion of Inclusion".

In conclusion, the complainant requested from the European Ombudsman:

- to confirm that he is competent to receive complaints about the minimum standards of consultation and to provide guidance to citizens and to the Commission.

- to recommend that the Commission should draw up a plan to include civil society and NGOs in particular as partners to be consulted in the design and implementation of EU Cohesion Policy.

- to take into account the wider implications of the need to consult at European level as an example to Member States by considering the conclusions and recommendations of the study "the illusion of inclusion".

Observations from a third party

In his complaint, the complainant had indicated that the Ombudsman may hear from other organisations directly with regard to the present complaint.

On 26 November 2004, the Regional Policy Officer of RSPB, a UK charity working to secure a healthy environment for birds and wildlife, reacted to the Commission's opinion. He observed that, despite its early request, BirdLife International was not represented at the Third Cohesion Forum on 11 May 2004. Neither were other NGO partners granted the floor to discuss environmental concerns.

He also disagreed with the Commission's comment that NGOs failed to provide sufficient input in terms of expressing and defending their positions and that they were not sufficiently mobilised to be consulted. BirdLife International submitted its position paper to the web-based debate in mid-2003 and later sent an in-depth report and recommendations on the mid-term evaluation of the Structural Funds 2000-2006. BirdLife also met with Commission officials face-to-face. In December 2003, EU level environmental NGOs decided to pool their individual efforts and to form a coalition to influence the future of EU regional policy. In this new framework, two conferences were held in February and October 2004 attended by representatives from the Commission, a joint position statement on the future of EU regional policy was made in May 2004 and regular contacts were made with the Commission.

THE DECISION

1 Preliminary remark concerning the competence of the Ombudsman

1.1 In his complaint and observations, the complainant requested the Ombudsman to confirm that he is competent to receive complaints about the minimum standards of consultation contained in Commission Communication COM(2002)704 of 11 December 2002 and to provide guidance to citizens and to the Commission.

1.2 The Ombudsman would first like to recall that, according to Article 195 of the EC Treaty, he is competent to receive complaints "concerning instances of maladministration in the activities of the Community institutions and bodies, with the exception of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance acting in their judicial role". By opening an inquiry on 27 April 2004, the Ombudsman has already indicated to the complainant that he is competent to deal with his complaint. There is indeed nothing to indicate that this complaint would fall outside the mandate of the European Ombudsman. Nor has the Commission raised any objection concerning the admissibility of the complaint.

1.3 The Ombudsman notes that point 3.8 and following below deals with the question of whether failure to comply with the principles, rules and procedures contained in a Communication could amount to maladministration.

1.4 The Ombudsman would further like to point out that, in addition to his re-active role - namely opening inquiries into possible maladministration on the basis of incoming complaints, the Ombudsman can also act in a pro-active mode in order to improve the quality of administration and to tackle problems of systemic maladministration. The Ombudsman does not exclude the possibility of a future pro-active initiative based on the Commission's Communication on minimum standards for consultation. Such an initiative would, however, be separate from the present inquiry which is into a complaint about an alleged instance of maladministration.

2 The alleged failure to respect the deadlines set out in Regulation 1049/2001

2.1 The complainant alleges that the Commission has failed to respect the deadlines set out in Regulation 1049/2001 with regard to his request for access to the third Cohesion report.

2.2 The Commission observed that the complainant's request of 9 January 2004 for access to the draft third Cohesion report was registered by the Secretariat General on 16 January 2004 and forwarded by virtual fax to DG REGIO. Because of a technical problem, the complainant's request was not properly assigned and dealt with. The Secretary General of the Commission apologised to the complainant on this point in his letter of 31 March 2004 in which he replied to the complainant's confirmatory application of 8 March 2004. On 20 April 2004, the complainant replied to this letter acknowledging that his confirmatory application had become devoid of purpose in as much as the cohesion report had since become public.

2.3 The Ombudsman notes that, in his letter of 31 March 2004, the Secretary General of the Commission regretted that, because of a technical problem, the complainant's letter of 9 January 2004 had never reached the responsible department, and apologised for the fact that he had not received an answer. In his reply of 20 April 2004 to that letter, the complainant observed that, in the light of the explanation and apology for the way the original request for access to documents had been handled, he could accept this issue as settled, subject to any observations of the Ombudsman.

2.4 The Ombudsman notes the complainant's view that this part of the complaint can be considered as settled and has no further observations to make on the matter.

3 The alleged failure to consult NGO's on the future of the Structural Funds

3.1 The complainant alleges that the Commission had failed to consult NGOs on the future of the Structural Funds. In this context, the complainant referred to the Commission Communication COM(2002)704 of 11 December 2002. The complainant underlined the particular importance of informing and hearing NGOs as widely as possible on the future of the Structural Funds, and stressed that there are issues on which NGOs in all EU Member States should be consulted. So far there has been a serious imbalance in the European cohesion debate between the involvement of regional authorities on the one hand and NGOs and local community development interests on the other hand.

3.2 In its opinion, the Commission observed that, when it adopted the Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion in January 2001, it launched a broad consultation of all partners, interest groups, associations and potential beneficiaries of cohesion policy, the major event in this consultation process being the second Forum on Economic and Social Cohesion in May 2001. The Commission also pointed out that, on 15 May 2003, DG REGIO set up, on its internet site, a special area for debate on the future of cohesion policy. As a result, all interested parties had an opportunity to express their views in advance of the publication of the Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion. On the basis of this consultation and its own analytical work, the Commission presented the Third Report in February 2004. The Report lays down the position of the Commission, which constitutes the basis for any future regulatory action. The final stage in the consultation process was the third Forum on Economic and Social Cohesion, which was held in May 2004 and was attended by some 1500 people, including representatives of most of the beneficiaries, interest groups, associations and authorities with powers in the field of structural policies. It was also attended by NGOs like Bird Life International and WWF. The Commission would welcome more input from NGOs, but this would mean that they should mobilise more effectively in the future. On the basis of the above, the Commission believes that it has acted as transparently as possible in preparing this report and that it has complied with the minimum consultation standards.

3.3 The Ombudsman notes that the document of reference for the present complaint is the "Communication from the Commission - Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue - General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission (COM(2002)704 final)". The Ombudsman also notes that ECAS is included in the list of contributors contained in the annex to the Communication.

3.4 As regards the nature of this document, the Commission Communication states that "some of those consulted questioned the Commission's decision to set consultation standards in the form of a Commission communication (i.e. in the form of a policy document) instead of adopting a legally-binding instrument. (…) However, the Commission remains convinced that a legally-binding approach to consultation is to be avoided, for two reasons: First, a clear dividing line must be drawn between consultations launched on the Commission's own initiative prior to the adoption of a proposal, and the subsequent formalised and compulsory decision-making process according to the Treaties. Second, a situation must be avoided in which a Commission proposal could be challenged in the Court on the grounds of alleged lack of consultation of interested parties. Such an over-legalistic approach would be incompatible with the need for timely delivery of policy, and with the expectations of the citizens that the European Institutions should deliver on substance rather than concentrating on procedures. Moreover, the fear expressed by some participants in the consultation process that the principles and guidelines could remain a dead letter because of their non-legally binding nature is due to a misunderstanding. It goes without saying that, when the Commission decides to apply the principles and guidelines, its departments have to act accordingly. (…) The general principles and minimum standards should serve as a reference point for a permanent in-house learning process.

3.5 With regard to the scope of the consultation, the Commission communication points out that "many of those consulted wanted a clearer explanation of the kinds of initiatives to which the new consultation framework will apply. In response, the Commission clarified the scope of the consultation standards.
However, the Commission has not taken up the idea proposed by some participants that the scope of the standards should be generally widened (to cover all consultation), or that they should be separated from the Commission's approach to extended impact assessments. This decision meets the overriding principle of proportionality, which must govern the Commission's administrative practice (see the general principles under the heading of 'effectiveness'). It is also linked to the fact that the Commission has to assess its consultation needs on a case-by-case basis in line with its right of initiative. By the same token, the Commission must emphasise that consultation can never be an open-ended or permanent process. In other words, there is a time to consult and there is a time to proceed with the internal decision-making and the final decision adopted by the Commission".

3.6 The general principles and minimum standards for consultations by the Commission, which apply from 1 January 2003, are set out in Part V of the Communication. It provides that "the principles draw primarily on the general principles guiding the conduct of the Commission's business. These key principles were highlighted in the Commission's White Paper on European Governance: Participation, openness, accountability, effectiveness and coherence. The Communication goes on to describe in detail the application of those principles to the consultation process.

3.7 The Communication sets out the following five minimum standards for the consultation process: A) Clear content of the consultation process: all communications relating to consultation should be clear and concise, and should include all necessary information to facilitate responses; B) Consultation target groups: when defining the target group(s) in a consultation process, the Commission should ensure that relevant parties have an opportunity to express their opinions; C) Publication: the Commission should ensure adequate awareness-raising publicity and adapt its communication channels to meet the needs of all target audiences. Without excluding other communication tools, open public consultations should be published on the Internet and announced at the "single access point"; D) Time limits for participation: the Commission should provide sufficient time for planning and responses to invitations and written contributions. The Commission should strive to allow at least 8 weeks for reception of responses to written public consultations and 20 working days notice for meetings; and E) Acknowledgement and feedback: receipt of contributions should be acknowledged. Results of open public consultation should be displayed on website linked to the single access point on the Internet.

3.8 As regards dealing with complaints which allege a failure to comply with the Commission Communication on minimum standards for consultation, the Ombudsman notes that, according to the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, the institutions shall ensure that the principle of equality of treatment is respected and take into consideration the relevant factors and give each of them its proper weight in the decision they take(3). The Ombudsman would thus regard failure to comply with the procedures and principles set out in the Communication on minimum standards for consultation as maladministration. The Ombudsman also points out in this context that he has already taken a similar view as regards the Commission Communication to the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law(4).

3.9 In the present case, the Ombudsman considers on the basis of the available information that the Commission appears to have organised a genuine consultation process with regard to its cohesion policy, in which the major events were the Second and Third Forums on Economic and Social Cohesion in May 2001 and May 2004. The Ombudsman further notes that the Commission has, on the website of DG REGIO(5), provided for a debate forum on the future of cohesion policy, entitled "A new Cohesion Policy after 2006". This site presents the Commission’s proposals and the debate about Cohesion Policy and its Structural Funds and instruments beyond 2006. It contains various links to contributions in the debate as well as an invitation to join the debate by sending contributions to the e-mail address REGIO-reformdebate@cec.eu.int).

3.10 As regards now the follow-up of the five minimum standards set out in the Commission Communication, the Ombudsman notes that, in his observations, the complainant has pointed out various shortcomings with regard to the minimum standards A), B), C) and, to a lesser extent, D).

3.11 With regard to minimum standard A) ("Clear content of the consultation process"), the Ombudsman understands that the complainant's remarks on this point in fact rather concern the target groups (i.e. point B)) than the content itself of the consultation process, as the complainant observed that the consultation process and the website were clear. It therefore appears that minimum standard A) does not seem to raise a particular problem.

3.12 As regards minimum standard B) ("Consultation target groups"), the complainant alleged that there was no evidence that the Commission made a special effort to meet this standard with regard to NGOs and that the Commission mainly focused on regional and local authorities. With this regard, the Ombudsman firstly notes that NGOs (both European and national organisations) are mentioned as a separate title in the list of contributors contained in the Commission's communication. The Ombudsman further notes that the Commission, in its opinion, seems to agree with the complainant that the input of NGOs could be improved. However, this does not appear to constitute an instance of maladministration by the Commission, since there is no evidence to show that the Commission is responsible for the fact that input from NGOs was not higher.

3.13 As regards minimum standard C) ("Publication"), the Ombudsman notes that the Commission has foreseen in an appropriate publicity by centralising all the relevant information concerning the Cohesion Policy on one single internet page of DG REGIO. The Ombudsman further notes that the Commission uses the single access point "Your-Voice-in-Europe" webportal(6) which is the general internet page for consultations in all the policies covered by the European Commission. There appears thus to be no instance of maladministration with regard to the publicity concerning the consultation process.

3.14 As regards minimum standard E) ("Acknowledgement and feedback"), the Ombudsman notes that the complainant stated that it was not the open and transparent way in which the debate was conducted which was the problem, but the fact that it was not sufficiently balanced and inclusive of civil society. It thus appears that this comment of the complainant rather relates to the lack of involvement of NGOs in the consultation process which was dealt with under the evaluation of minimum standard B) above.

3.15 On the basis of the above - and in particular with regard to the five minimum standards of consultation - the Ombudsman found no instance of maladministration with regard to the consultation of NGOs on the future of the Structural Funds.

3.16 Finally, the Ombudsman notes that the complainant has questioned whether the minimum standards are sufficiently clear and whether the Commission's traditionally sectoral approach to consultation should be supplemented by a more cross-sectoral and holistic one, particularly when its proposals have an impact on a wide range of interests.

3.17 In this regard, the Ombudsman first points out that the review he has carried out in the present case demonstrates that the minimum standards are sufficiently clear to make it possible to evaluate whether the Commission has complied with them. As regards the possible adoption of a more cross-sectoral and holistic approach to consultation, the Ombudsman considers, for the reasons stated above, that the Commission has complied with its announced minimum standards in the present case.

3.18 The Ombudsman does not, however, exclude the possibility either that the minimum standards could be expressed more clearly, or that a more cross-sectoral and holistic approach to consultation could be appropriate in some cases. The Ombudsman points out that the complainant has the possibility to make suggestions in this regard to the Commission and that it would be good administration for the Commission to give serious consideration to any such suggestions.

4 Conclusion

With regard to the first allegation, it appears from the Commission’s comments and the complainant's letter of 20 April 2004 to the Secretary General of the Commission that the Commission has taken steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied the complainant.

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into the second allegation, there appears to have been no maladministration by the Commission. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The President of the Commission will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) Regulation (EC) n° 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.

(2) Communication from the Commission - Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue - General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission (COM/2002/0704 final).

(3) Articles 5 (Absence of discrimination) and 9 ("Objectivity") of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour. See also Case T-70/99, Alpharma Inc. v Council, 2002 ECR II-03495, paragraph 140.

(4) (COM(2002) 141 final), OJ 2002 C 244/5.

(5) http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/debate/forum_en.htm

(6) http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice