Dear Mr P.,
On 26 February 1998, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning an alleged failure of the Commission to acknowledge receipt of your complaint dated 6 August 1997 concerning a possible infringement of Community environmental law by the Greek Authorities as regards the construction of a dam on the Amari River in the District of Rethimnon, Crete.
On 12 May 1998, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 3 July 1998 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. No observations have been received from you. However, on 18 January 1999, you wrote in order to inform me that since June 1998 you had received no further communication from the Commission services with regard to the outcome of your complaint.
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 were as follows:
The complainant, who acts on behalf of Nawacrete, a registered environmental charity, sent on 6 August 1997 a complaint to the Commission raising a violation of Community environmental law by the Greek Authorities as regards the construction of a dam on the Amari River in the District of Rethimnon, Crete. A reminder of this letter with a request for an acknowledgement of receipt was sent on 27 November 1997. Given that the complainant received no reply, he contacted the Secretariat General of the Commission by phone on 5 February 1998 in order to inquire about the outcome of his complaint. Since no answer was received, the complainant wrote to the Ombudsman on 26 February 1998 asking for an investigation of the administrative procedure regarding his complaint.

THE INQUIRY

The European Commision's opinion
In its observations, the Commission recognised that the complainant had made a complaint in August 1997 and had sent a reminder on 27 November 1997. However, because of a regrettable administrative error, the correspondence received from the complainant had not been promptly registered as a complaint by the Commission services. To correct this failure, the Commission pointed out that it had registered the letter of the complainant as complaint n 98/4483 and that it sent an acknowledgement of receipt to the complainant on 4 June 1998 informing him that the Commission services were examining the complaint. The Commission finally stated that the handling of the complaint was now being pursued according to the usual procedure. In its observations, the Commission also recalled the allegations of the original complaint, which were that a) the complainant's observations concerning the construction project had not been taken into account, as they should have been pursuant to Article 6 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC(1), and that b) the project would negatively affect the special protection area of the Gorge of Prasiana.
The complainant's observations
No observations were received on the Commission's comments. However, the complainant wrote on 18 January 1999 stating that his complaint only got registered due to the initiative of the Ombudsman, but that since June 1998 no further communication was received from the Commission. He referred also to the fact that he made his initial complaint in August 1997. He therefore requested the Ombudsman to inquire the outcome of the complaint.

THE DECISION

1. The alleged failure of the Commission to sent an acknowledgement receipt
1.1 The complainant alleged that the Commission had not acknowledged the receipt of the complaint he sent on 6 August 1997 and that it neither replied to his reminder letter of 27 November 1997 in which he asked explicitly for an acknowledgement receipt. The Commission observed that the complaint had not been registered because of a regrettable administrative error. To put an end to this failure the Commission finally registered the complaint, acknowledged its receipt on 4 June 1998 and informed the complainant that its services were examining the case. Therefore, by having registered and acknowledged receipt of the complaint, the Commission has settled the matter.
1.2 In his letter of 18 January 1999 the complainant however informed the Ombudsman that since the acknowledgement receipt of June 1998, no further communication was received from the Commission services with regard to the outcome of his complaint. The complainant drew the attention on the fact that in its comments the Commission had stated that the complaint would be processed according to the usual procedure.
2. Conclusion
As regards the alleged failure of the Commission to sent an acknowledgement receipt, it appears from the European Commission´s comments and the complainant's observations that the Commission has taken steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied the complainant. The Ombudsman has therefore decided to close the case.

FURTHER REMARKS

As regards point 1.2 above, the Ombudsman notes that, according to the Commission's own observations in the frame of the Ombudsman's own initiative inquiry 303/97/PD (2), the complainant is kept informed about the action taken by the Commission in response to the complaint. It appears from the complainant's letter of January 1999 that since June 1998 he received no communication about the action taken on his complaint. The Ombudsman foresees that the Commission will keep the complainant informed duly in accordance with the obligations it has undertaken in these cases.
The President of the European Commission will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely,
Jacob SÖDERMAN

---

(1) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ 1985 L 175/40.

(2) Annual Report 1997 of the European Ombudsman, p. 270.