Strasbourg, 17 December 2003

Dear X.,

On 29 December 2002, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission concerning its Euro-Jus service.

On 29 January 2003, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 24 April 2003 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 28 May 2003.

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

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the facts of the case are the following:

In a brochure published by a European Commission Representation (hereinafter "the Representation"), the complainant read about the Commission free legal advice service named 'Euro-Jus'. The brochure referred to a lawyer who at the time had the responsibility for providing this service. The complainant contacted the lawyer, who gave him legal advice.

The complainant was dissatisfied with the lawyer's legal advice. He therefore contacted the Representation to submit a formal complaint against the lawyer on 8 September 2002. He initially received no reply and therefore wrote a reminder. The Representation sent him a formal reply on 6 December 2002, stating the following:

"Thank you for your viewpoints.

Your case has been handled by the European Commission's legal advice service, for which the lawyer [ Y ] was responsible at the time in question.

Lawyer [ Y ] has in the concrete case given you a guiding assessment and advice.

We can only take note of your disagreement with the lawyer's assessment, but we have no influence on the assessment.

We do not consider it possible to help you further in this matter, and consider the case as closed."

The complainant alleges that the Representation has failed to comply with its duty to carry out an inquiry into his complaint against the lawyer who at the time was responsible for the Euro-Jus service of the Commission in that country.

The complainant claims that an inquiry should be carried out by the Commission Representation concerned.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

The Commission made, in summary, the following points:

On 4 November 2002, the Representation received ane-mail from the complainant addressed to the Representation's general e-mail address. In this e-mail the complainant asked for an answer to an attached e-mail, alleged to have been sent on 8 September 2002.

Thorough investigations were undertaken to find the incoming e-mail of 8 September 2002, but no trace was found. On 5 November 2002, the Representation informed the complainant via e-mail that there was no record of his e-mail of 8 September and assured him that they would look into the matter and get back to him. Discussion then took place between the Representation and the Euro-Jus contractor. On 28 November 2002, the complainant sent the Representation copies by fax of correspondence exchanged between the Euro-Jus contractor and the complainant. On examination by the Representation, it was found that the case had been dealt with in the correct manner and that there was no mention in the correspondence between the Euro-Jus contractor and the complainant of any formal complaint. On 6 December 2002, the Representation wrote to the complainant informing him that, in their view, the case was closed.

Following close examination of comments expressed by the complainant about the legal advice provided, it is clear that the service provided by the Euro-Jus contractor was correct. Both the Commission and Euro-Jus complied with their obligations in respect of the advice requested. If the complainant wishes to seek further legal advice that is a matter for him to pursue personally. The Commission referred to the contract rules.(1)

With regard to the complainant's observation that the lawyer who had advised him was no longer providing legal assistance on behalf of the Representation, the Commission wishes to point out that the change in lawyer was entirely due to the expiration of a contract. It does not reflect in any way on the quality of advice provided by the lawyer in question.

The Commission regrets that there is no record of the e-mail from the complainant of 8 September 2002, but would point out that, in the usual course of events, records in this office are strictly maintained.

In relation to all subsequent correspondence from the complainant, the Commission believes that the case was handled in the correct manner and in full compliance with the Commission's Code of good administrative behaviour. Concerning the request made by the complainant that "an inquiry should be carried out by the Commission's Representation", the Commission considers that the Representation has carefully looked into, and followed up, the questions raised by the complainant and that no further investigation is necessary.

The complainant's observations

The complainant made, in summary, the following points:

The complainant maintains his complaint and considers that his complaint has been correctly presented to the Commission.

The complainant is of the view that the Commission has dismissed his complaint and considers that the Commission's regrets are totally irrelevant. The complainant maintains that his matter was not handled correctly: nothing was checked, no documentation was provided and the case was not registered. The complainant argues that the Representation did not check anything.

The complainant stated that he wishes to make a new allegation about a cover-up by the Commission services.

THE DECISION

1 Alleged failure to carry out an inquiry into a complaint against a Euro-Jus lawyer

1.1 The complainant contacted the Euro-Jus lawyer, who gave him legal advice. The complainant was dissatisfied with the lawyer's legal advice. He therefore contacted the European Commission Representation in that country (hereafter "the Representation") to submit a formal complaint against the lawyer on 8 September 2002. He initially received no reply and therefore sent a reminder on 4 November 2002. The Representation sent him a formal reply on 6 December 2002. The complainant is of the view that his case was not handled correctly. According to him, the Representation has failed to comply with its duty to carry out an inquiry into the complaint against the Euro-Jus lawyer.

1.2 In its opinion, the Commission explains that thorough investigations were undertaken to find the complainant's e-mail of 8 September 2002, but no trace was found. On 5 November 2002, the Representation informed the complainant via e-mail that there was no record of his e-mail of 8 September 2002 and assured him that they would look into the matter and get back to him. Discussion then took place between the Representation and the Euro-Jus contractor. On 28 November 2002, the complainant sent the Representation copies by fax of correspondence exchanged between the Euro-Jus contractor and the complainant. On examination by the Representation, it was found that the case had been dealt with in the correct manner and that there was no mention in the correspondence between the Euro-Jus contractor and the complainant of any formal complaint. On 6 December 2002, the Representation wrote to the complainant informing him that, in their view, the case was closed.

1.3 The evidence available to the Ombudsman as a result of his inquiry is that the Commission replied to the complainant after examining his complaint and that it explained its position on the matter. The Ombudsman takes the view that the response of the Commission appears to be reasonable. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration by the Commission in relation to this allegation.

1.4 In his observations, the complainant states that he wishes to make a new allegation about a cover-up by the Commission services. The Ombudsman points out that the complainant has the possibility to submit a new complaint to the Ombudsman, if he considers that he has evidence to provide grounds for a new inquiry by the Ombudsman, or to lodge a complaint under the Commission's code of good administrative behaviour(2) directly with the Secretariat-General of the European Commission.

2 The claim that an inquiry should be carried out

2.1 The complainant claims that an inquiry should be carried out by the European Commission Representation into his complaint against the Euro-Jus lawyer.

2.2 The Commission considers that the Representation has carefully looked into, and followed up, the questions raised by the complainant and that no further investigation is necessary.

2.3 The European Ombudsman is not aware of any rule or principle that would require the Commission to go beyond the action it has already taken in this matter, unless the complainant submits a complaint as regards the Commission services, as mentioned in paragraph 1.4 above. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers that the complainant's claim cannot be sustained.

3 Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the Ombudsman considers that there is no maladministration by the Commission. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) Translation of extract from the contract: "the contractor does not represent the Commission and will provide services on his own responsibility (...) Eurojus is not designed as a substitute for the advice and assistance of a lawyer in legal proceedings (...)/replies will be provided on the sole responsibility of the contractor and are not binding in respect of the Commission and this clause should be mentioned whenever a written reply is issued (...)."

(2) Code of good administrative behaviour for staff of the European Commission in their relations with the public, OJ 2000 L 308/26 at 308/32. Address for complaints: Secretariat-General of the European Commission, Unit SG/B/2 "Openness, access to documents, relations with civil society", rue de la Loi 200, B-1049 BRUSSELS (fax: +32-2-296.72.42).