Strasbourg, 25 September 2007

Dear Mr M.,

On 13 June 2006, you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the European Commission's handling of letters you sent to it in January 2006. In two e-mails of 19 and 24 July 2006, you sent further information in relation to your complaint.

On 9 August 2006, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission.

On 23 October and 7 November 2006, you informed me of changes in your postal address. Following your request, my services acknowledged receipt of this information on 24 October and 8 November 2006 respectively.

In an e-mail of 12 December 2006, you asked to be informed what stage my inquiries into your complaint had reached.

On 14 December 2006, the Commission informed my services that its opinion on your complaint, which had been due on 30 November 2006, was about to be completed. I informed you accordingly by letter of 20 December 2006.

The Commission sent the original English version of its opinion on 12 January 2007 and a translation of it into German on 19 January 2007. On 23 January 2007, I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 28 February 2007.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant, an Austrian citizen living in the United States, reported that, in January 2006, he sent letters to the President of the European Commission as well as to all the Commissioners in office at that time. These submissions mainly appeared to concern alleged misbehaviour on the part of certain Austrian authorities and politicians. The complainant also mentioned two complaints concerning alleged infringements of Community law by Austria, which he had submitted to the Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security and to the Commissioner for Competition. The complainant alleged that the President and all the Commissioners had failed adequately to deal with his submissions.

In particular, he submitted that the President of the Commission had not replied to a complaint the complainant had addressed to him in his capacity as President, nor to letters he had addressed to him in his previous capacity as Prime Minister of Portugal. As regards the Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security and the Commissioner for Competition, he alleged that his infringement complaints had not been answered. He claimed that the Ombudsman should ask the Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security to request statements from the relevant Austrian authorities concerning the matter he had raised in his infringement complaint. As regards the Commissioner for External Relations, the complainant alleged that the Commissioner had failed to reply to his letters in which he asked her to comment on his suspicion that she was involved in a criminal case. He also alleged that, in the Commissioner's time as Austria's Foreign Minister, her services had not accepted delivery of his letters sent by registered post. He claimed that the Commissioner should provide him with a complete and honest answer to his allegations. As regards the Commissioner for Information Society and Media, the complainant reported that he had only received a message from her office informing him that his letter had been passed on to the Cabinet of the Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security. The complainant considered this reply to be unsatisfactory because he had asked the Commissioner to exert her influence on the Commissioner for External Relations on a direct personal level. As regards the Commissioner for Trade, the complainant stated that he had been informed by e-mail that the information he had requested would be sent to him as soon as possible. However, he alleged that such information had never been sent to him. As regards the Commissioner for Health, the complainant reported that he had received a postcard informing him that his submission had been transferred to the Directorate-General for Justice and that he would be sent an appropriate reply in due course. However, the complainant alleged that his postal address as it appeared on the postcard was incomplete; that it was not clear to which of his letters it referred; and that he never received an appropriate reply.

Apart from the Commissioners referred to above, the complainant also extended his complaint to all of the other Commissioners, who, according to him, had also failed adequately to handle his letters.

Together with his complaint, the complainant attached detailed lists of the voluminous correspondence and annexes he had sent to the Commission. He also attached a CD-ROM containing a very large number of files.

THE INQUIRY

The Ombudsman's considerations

The Ombudsman noted that, in so far as the complaint concerned the President of the Commission during his time as Prime Minister of Portugal and the Commissioner for External Relations during her time as Austria's Foreign Minister, the complaint was not directed against a Community institution or body. The Ombudsman found that, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Ombudsman's Statute, he was not entitled to investigate these aspects of the complaint.

The Ombudsman asked the Commission for an opinion on the following allegation and claim:

The complainant alleges that the President of the Commission and all the Commissioners failed adequately to handle his submissions.

The complainant claims that the different Commission services should provide adequate replies to his submissions.

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion, the Commission stated that the core of the complainant's numerous submissions to it appeared to concern Austria's alleged violation of the principle of the rule of law. According to the Commission, the complainant's concerns appeared to arise from the ostensible failure by certain public authorities and politicians to reply to his applications in an appropriate manner. The Commission added that the few concrete cases that could be identified as being at the origin of the complainant's applications included an alleged forgery of his clearance certificate; remarks made by a district attorney concerning the complainant's surname, which he had perceived as being anti-Semitic; a case of an individual's death a few months after that person's release from detention; and a trial against a journalist who had allegedly been mistreated by the police. The Commission reported that, on the basis of these allegations, the complainant had asked it to institute infringement proceedings against Austria. Furthermore, the complainant had protested against a Latvian law on citizenship, which he considered to be discriminatory vis-à-vis the Russian minority in Latvia. He had requested that the Commission bring about the abolition of the law in question.

In a footnote to its opinion, the Commission added that it had found the complainant's submissions to be extremely difficult to follow, given that he mentioned various different issues, many of which were unclear and repetitive. Furthermore, he attached to his claims long lists of enclosures, which, however, were not reproduced. Instead, the reader was directed to publications on the complainant's website using weblinks.

The Commission regretted that there had been a delay in replying to the complainant. It apologised for the fact that it had not dealt with the complainant's complaint according to its Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.

As to the substance of the complainant's submissions, the Commission considered that the allegations against the Austrian public authorities and politicians, in the way they were presented by him, as well as the allegations against the Latvian law on citizenship fell outside the scope of the Commission's competence.

The Commission stated that it had written to the complainant in order to apologise for the delay and to inform him about the scope of its competence with regard to the matters of concern to him. As regards the complainant's request that it should institute an infringement procedure against Austria, the Commission had provided him with an explanation as to the scope and function of the relevant remedies under the EU and EC Treaties. As regards his claim concerning the abolition of the law on citizenship in Latvia, the Commission had informed the complainant that the question of acquisition and loss of citizenship of the EU Member States was a matter that came within the exclusive competence of the Member States. Together with its opinion, the Commission attached a copy of the letter it had sent to the complainant.

The Commission concluded that it was not in a position to take any steps in relation to the complainant's submissions, either as regards his allegations against Austria, or as regards his allegation concerning Latvia.

The complainant's observations

In his observations, the complainant maintained his view that the Commissioner for Competition was competent to launch infringement proceedings against Austria. In support of this view, he argued that, since media owners exerted pressure on members of government in relation to planned mergers, democracy as a whole was at stake. He recalled that, in his letter to the Commissioner, he had expounded what he called his "extortion theory". In his observations, he quoted from a newspaper article, which he considered to constitute further evidence in support of his theory. Therefore, the complainant claimed that the Commissioner should take action in this respect.

The complainant did not make any observations concerning any of the other issues he had raised.

THE DECISION

1 Alleged failure properly to handle correspondence

1.1 The complainant, an Austrian citizen living in the United States, alleged that the President of the European Commission as well as all the Commissioners had failed adequately to deal with letters he sent to them in January 2006, including two complaints concerning alleged infringements of Community law by Austria. The complainant made detailed comments concerning the handling of his submissions by certain Commissioners and enclosed detailed lists of all correspondence and annexes he had sent to the Commission. He also enclosed a CD-ROM containing a very large number of files. He claimed that the different Commission services should provide adequate replies to his submissions.

1.2 In its opinion, the Commission gave an overview of the issues the complainant had raised in his correspondence. It added that it had found the complainant's submissions to be extremely difficult to follow, given that he had mentioned various different issues, many of which were unclear and repetitive. Furthermore, the complainant had attached to his claims long lists of enclosures, which, however, were not reproduced. Instead, the reader was directed to publications on the complainant's website using weblinks. The Commission regretted that there had been a delay in replying to the complainant. It apologised for the fact that it had not dealt with the complainant's complaint according to its Code of Good Administrative Behaviour. As to the substance of the complainant's submissions, the Commission considered that the matters he had raised fell outside the scope of its competence. The Commission stated that it had written to the complainant in order to apologise for the delay and to inform him about the scope of its competence with regard to the matters of concern to him. It concluded that it was not in a position to take any steps in relation to the complainant's submissions. Together with its opinion, the Commission attached a copy of the letter it had sent to the complainant on 15 December 2006.

1.3 In his observations, the complainant maintained his view that the Commissioner for Competition was competent to open infringement proceedings against Austria. He provided further information in relation to the complaint he had submitted to the above Commissioner, which appeared to concern alleged undue influence of media owners on members of the Austrian government in relation to mergers. The complainant claimed that the Commissioner should take action in this respect. He did not make observations concerning any of the other issues he had raised.

1.4 It is good administrative practice for the administration to reply to correspondence from citizens within a reasonable time and in an adequate way. More specifically, in relation to complaints against infringements of Community law, the "Commission Communication on Relations with the Complainant in Respect of Infringements of Community Law"(1) applies. Point 4 (Acknowledgment of receipt) of this Communication prescribes that "[t]he Secretariat-General of the Commission shall issue an initial acknowledgement of all correspondence within 15 working days of receipt." The second paragraph of Point 3 (Recording of complaints) of the Communication refers to the grounds on the basis of which the Commission may decide not to record a complaint in the central registry of complaints. Included in these grounds are cases where a complaint "sets out a grievance which clearly falls outside the scope of Community law." In this case, paragraph 4 of Point 4 applies, which provides as follows:

"Where the Commission departments decide not to register the correspondence as a complaint, they shall notify the author to that effect by ordinary letter setting out one or more of the reasons listed in the second paragraph of point 3."

1.5 In the present case, the Commission acknowledged that it had not replied to the complainant's submissions in good time. The Ombudsman is pleased to note that the Commission apologised to the complainant for this delay and that it sent him a letter in which it provided detailed explanations on the issues it had identified as being at the core of the complainant's submissions. As regards his request that it should institute infringement proceedings against Austria, the Commission explained that the matter the complainant had raised did not fall within its competence.

1.6 The Ombudsman notes that the complainant has not commented on the new letter from the Commission. The Ombudsman considers that, particularly in view of the volume and complex organisation of the materials the complainant sent to the Commission(2), the latter appears to have made genuine and thorough efforts properly to address the complainant's concerns.

1.7 However, the Ombudsman notes that, in his observations, the complainant stated that the Commission had not replied to his complaint to the Commissioner for Competition in relation to alleged undue influence of media owners on certain Austrian authorities concerning mergers. The Ombudsman has verified that the materials attached to the complainant's complaint indeed contain copies of correspondence sent to the Commissioner for Competition concerning this issue. The Commission does not appear to have dealt with this issue in its opinion or in its letter to the complainant of 15 December 2006, in which it only referred to one infringement complaint.

1.8 The Ombudsman also notes the volume and complexity of the complainant's submissions to the Commission and the latter's considerable efforts to provide the complainant with a satisfactory reply to them. In view of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission's failure to deal with one of the issues raised by the complainant does not, at present, justify further inquiries on his part. Instead, the Ombudsman trusts that the Commission will, within a reasonable time upon receipt of this decision, write to the complainant again, addressing the issue he raised in his complaint to the Commissioner for Competition in an appropriate way. However, should the Commission, contrary to expectations, fail to do so, the complainant remains of course free to turn to the Ombudsman again.

2 Conclusion

For the reasons given above, the Ombudsman considers that no further inquiries are justified in relation to the matters dealt with in the Commission’s letter to the complainant dated 15 December 2006.

As regards the issue which the Commission did not address in that letter, the Ombudsman trusts that the Commission will write to the complainant again. He therefore considers that no further inquiries as regards this aspect of the case are justified at present and closes the case.

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

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) COM(2002) 141 final.

(2) The CD-ROM the complainant enclosed with his complaint includes a folder entitled "EU Kommission", containing 388 files. The complainant's complaint to the Commissioner for Competition, for example, consists of a 44-page letter, accompanied by 290 enclosures, which, however, are not attached to the letter, but are accessible through weblinks.