Dear Mr R.,
On 31 December 1998 you lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman on behalf of INTERLAND and GÉNÉRALITÉ OCCITANE concerning the alleged refusal of the Commission to answer some of your letters.
On 2 March 1999, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The European Commission sent its opinion on 4 May 1999 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. I did not receive any observations from you.
I am writing now to let you know the result of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

On 16 February 1996, the complainant addressed two letters to the European Commission, on behalf of two organisations. One was addressed to Directorate General (DG) XIII and aimed at obtaining information about the existence of direct financial support by the Commission for projects promoting the use of interlingua (modern Latin). Another one was addressed to DG XVI and aimed at informing the Commission of the creation of an organisation promoting "l'Occitanie" (regions in France, Italy and Spain in which the langue d'oc is spoken). The complainant inquired as to if, and how, the Commission could help this new organisation.
Having received no answer to these letters the complainant contacted DG XIII again on 24 December 1996, and DG XVI on 14 November 1997 explicitly referring to his previous correspondence. These letters were not replied to either. Taking into consideration that the Commission adopted a very negative attitude towards his two important undertakings and thus failing to fulfil its tasks, the complainant asked the European Ombudsman to investigate the matter.

THE INQUIRY

The European Commission's opinion
The opinion of the European Commission on the complaint is in summary the as follows:
Regarding the letters addressed to its DG XIII the Commission recognised that they had been received and duly attributed to the former Head of Unit XIII/E/6. The Commission deeply regretted that no appropriate follow-up had been given and stressed that the failure to reply was caused by some administrative problems which by no means implied a negative attitude towards the issues of concern to the complainant. Following a general reorganisation of DG XIII the tasks of unit XIII/E/6 were transferred to unit XIII/E/4 which has prepared an answer to the complainant's letters on 22 March 1999.
As far as the letters addressed to DG XVI are concerned, the Commission regretted that no proper reply had been sent to the complainant, and that it did by no means denote any negative attitude towards Occitanian culture. It put forward that the large amount of work which is dealt with by DG XVI might explain the failure to reply, without however justifying it. In its opinion to the Ombudsman the Commission explained that the complainant's project could only be funded following a general tender procedure. During the period 1996-1998 two out of three calls for tenders had to involve central European countries. Between 2000 and 2006 however, interregional co-operation projects will be funded in the framework of the INTERREG program. The main characteristics of it will be forwarded in the following months.
The complainant's observations
The European Ombudsman forwarded the Commission's opinion to the complainant with an invitation to make observations. The complainant didn't send in any observations.
On 1 September 1999 the complainant was contacted by the European Ombudsman's services by telephone. He informed the European Ombudsman that he had indeed received a letter from DG XIII and that in the meantime he also received several calls for tender likely to be of interest for his organisation.
The complainant thanked the Ombudsman for his intervention, and, although he regretted the delays that occurred, declared to be fully satisfied with the information obtained from the Commission.

THE DECISION

1 Failure to reply to requests for information
1.1 The complainant addressed two different departments of the European Commission and asked for information which he didn't receive even though he sent two reminding letters.
1.2 Further to the intervention of the European Ombudsman, the Commission acknowledged that some administrative problems had lead to this failure to reply, apologised for it and took action to settle the matter. The complainant informed the Ombudsman that he received late but fully satisfying answers to his requests and that he was sent several calls for tender which are of interest to his organisation.
2 Conclusion
On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint it appears 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.
The President of the European Commission will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely,
Jacob SÖDERMAN