Decision of the European Ombudsman on complaint 1712/2002/(SM)IJH against the European Commission

Strasbourg, 23 July 2003

Dear Mr R.,

On 23 September 2002, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the Commission. Your complaint concerns the implementation of Regulation 954/2002, which provides for the administration of a tariff quota for frozen meat of bovine animals.

On 13 November 2002, your complaint was forwarded to the President of the Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 11 February 2003. The opinion was forwarded to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. No observations appear to have been received from you.

The European Ombudsman also received another complaint concerning the same issue. In order to ensure a consistent approach, the decision on your case was postponed until the inquiries into the other case were completed in July 2003.

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

THE COMPLAINT

In September 2002, an Irish company complained to the European Ombudsman against the Commission concerning the interpretation and application of Commission Regulation 954/2002 opening and providing for the administration of a tariff quota for frozen meat of bovine animals.

According to the complainant, the closing date for applications to be recognised as an approved operator under the Regulation was 13 June 2002 in Ireland, but 14 June 2002 in several other EU countries. Furthermore, the Commission did not provide clarification of the Regulation until after the expiry of the deadline for applications in Ireland, but before the deadline in several other EU countries.

The complainant company alleges that it was unfairly disadvantaged by the above.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

The Commission’s opinion made, in summary, the following points:

The Regulation under review opens an annual import quota as required from the Community by WTO-schedule CXL. The quota concerned has been characterised by an increasing level of speculation. For this reason, it was decided to provide stricter criteria for participation, so as to avoid the registration of fictitious operators. Where there are obvious reasons to suspect that fictitious operators have applied for registration, Member States should proceed to a more detailed examination. Penalties should be determined where fictitious operators have applied for registration, or approval was granted on the basis of forged or fraudulent documentation.

Article 9 of Regulation 954/2002 reflects these aims. New operators must prove a minimum activity in the trade on their own account. Where two or more applicants have the same postal address, or where there are other serious grounds to suspect that operators are related, Member States shall verify that such applicants are not related to one another within the meaning of Article 143 of Commission Regulation 2454/93.

The Commission’s guidelines are for the benefit of national authorities processing applications. The Commission submitted guidelines on 14 June 2002, in time for the national authorities to process applications. The guidelines make clear that a Member State only initiates the Article 143 examination where it discovers common addresses, or has serious grounds to suspect that applicants are not independent in terms of management, staff and operations.

As regards the disparity between the different linguistic versions in the deadline for applications to be submitted (13 or 14 June), the language version officially recognised in the Member State of application applies in such cases. No discrimination or distortion of competition has taken place. All interested parties had sufficient time to prepare their application file, irrespective of the deadline being 13 or 14 June.

The complainant's observations

The Commission’s opinion was forwarded to the complainant, who did not submit observations.

THE DECISION

1 Preliminary remark

1.1 The complaint is made on behalf of an Irish company. It concerns the interpretation and application of Commission Regulation 954/2002(1), which concerns an annual import quota for frozen beef.

1.2 The Ombudsman also received another complaint, 1343/2002/(SM)IJH(2), concerning the implementation of Regulation 954/2002, in which the complainant put forward more detailed allegations and arguments. The present decision deals only with the specific allegations and arguments put forward by the complainant in the present case.

2 Alleged unfair treatment of a company in Ireland

2.1 According to the complainant, the closing date for applications to be recognised as an approved operator under Regulation 954/2002 was 13 June 2002 in Ireland, but 14 June 2002 in several other EU countries. Furthermore, the Commission did not provide clarification of the Regulation until after the expiry of the deadline for applications in Ireland, but before the deadline in several other EU countries. The complainant alleges that it was unfairly disadvantaged by the above.

2.2 As regards the disparity between different linguistic versions of the Regulation in the deadline for applications (13 or 14 June), the Commission argues that the provision of the language version officially recognised in the Member State of application applies and that no discrimination or distortion of competition has taken place. All interested parties had sufficient time to prepare their application, irrespective of the deadline being 13 or 14 June 2002.

As regards the timing of the Commission’s clarification, the relevant guidelines are for the benefit of national authorities processing applications. The Commission submitted guidelines in time for the national authorities to process applications.

2.3 The Ombudsman takes the view that the Commission’s arguments that all interested parties had sufficient time to prepare their applications and that there was no discrimination or distortion of competition, appear reasonable. The Ombudsman also accepts as reasonable the Commission’s argument that it issued its clarifications of the Regulation in time to fulfil their purpose of assisting national authorities to process applications.

In view of the above, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration by the Commission.

The Ombudsman points out that he also made a finding of no maladministration following an inquiry into the more detailed allegations and arguments put forward in case 1343/2002/(SM)IJH, mentioned in paragraph 1.2 above.

3 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, 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) Commission Regulation (EC) No 954/2002 of 4 June 2002 opening and providing for the administration of a tariff quota for frozen meat of bovine animals covered by CN code 0202 and products covered by CN code 02062991 (1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003), 2002 OJ L 147/8.

(2) This complaint was classified as confidential, at the complainant’s request, in accordance with Article 2 (3) of the Statute of the Ombudsman. The decision will therefore be available on the Ombudsman’s website in anonymised form.