Strasbourg, 23 January 2004

Dear Mr S.,

On 21 April 2003, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission in which you alleged that the Commission had failed to reply to your letters of 30 December 2002, 2 March 2003 and 24 March 2003.

On 30 April 2003, my services informally contacted the Commission to ascertain whether a reply to your letters had been sent in the meantime.

On 4 and 10 May 2003, you sent me further information concerning your complaint.

On 12 May 2003, the Commission forwarded to me a copy of a letter that was dated 30 April 2003 and that had been sent to you on 6 May 2003.

On 21 May 2003, I forwarded your complaint to the President of the Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 18 September 2003.

In a letter sent to me on 17 September 2003, you submitted two further allegations.

On 23 September 2003, I forwarded your letter of 17 September 2003 to the Commission and asked the latter to provide an opinion on the additional allegations that you had raised therein. You were informed accordingly in a letter addressed to you the same day.

On 9 October 2003, I forwarded to you a copy of the German translation of the Commission’s first opinion of 18 September 2003. In a letter sent on 10 October 2003, you made observations on this opinion.

On 29 October 2003, the Commission sent its opinion on the allegations you had raised in your letter of 17 September 2003. I forwarded this opinion to you on 11 November 2003 with an invitation to make observations by 15 December 2003 at the latest.

No observations were received from you by that date.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The initial complaint

On 30 December 2002, the complainant, a German citizen, wrote to Mrs Diamantopoulou, the member of the European Commission in charge of the latter’s Directorate-General (“DG”) Employment and Social Affairs, in order to ask for information. The complainant pointed out that a riding centre for disabled and socially disadvantaged children and young people in Berlin was facing financial difficulties due to the reduction in state funding in general and to reductions in the budget of the Land Berlin in particular. He therefore asked for information as to whether the EU was in a position to grant financial assistance to the riding centre and as to what conditions had to be fulfilled in order to obtain such assistance.

In the absence of a reply, the complainant sent a reminder to Mrs Diamantopoulou on 2 March 2003 and a further reminder to DG Employment and Social Affairs on 24 March 2003.

In his complaint to the Ombudsman lodged in April 2003, the complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to reply to these letters.

The complainant’s letter of 4 May 2003

In a further letter sent to the Ombudsman on 4 May 2003, the complainant pointed out that he had in the meantime received a reply from the Commission which was dated 23 April 2003. According to this reply, any funds that could possibly be available for projects such as the one mentioned by the complainant were administered by the Member States. The complainant was therefore advised to contact the government of the Land Berlin.

The complainant considered the Commission’s reply to be unsatisfactory. In his view, the Commission should provide information on EU funds that had been or were being made available to Member States for such projects. He pointed out that in the past there had been cases where funds provided by the EU had not been taken up or used through the negligence of national authorities. In the complainant’s view, such information was of particular importance in view of the fact that 2003 had been designated the “European Year of People with Disabilities”. The complainant expressed the hope that his concern should meet with the Commission’s acceptance, even if it should not be possible to provide a direct financial assistance or grant.

The Commission’s letter of 6 May 2003

On 6 May 2003, the Commission sent a further letter (dated 30 April 2003) to the complainant in which it informed the complainant that no funds could be made available from the budget of the European Commission for the purpose described by the complainant. According to the letter, this information had already been provided in the Commission’s previous reply.

The complainant’s letter of 10 May 2003

On 10 May 2003, the complainant forwarded to the Ombudsman copies of letters he had received from the German Federal Ministry for Health and Social Security and from the Senate of Berlin and which informed him that neither national nor regional funds or assistance under the European Social Fund were available for the riding centre. The Federal Ministry explained that assistance from the European Social Fund was only foreseen in order to combat unemployment. In his letter to the Ombudsman, the complainant expressed the view that only lip service was paid to the aim pursued by the “European Year of People with Disabilities”. According to the complainant, this state of things reinforced the need for a satisfactory reply from the Commission.

THE INQUIRY

In the light of the complainant’s letters of 4 and 10 May 2003, the Ombudsman considered that the complainant now alleged that the Commission had failed to provide a satisfactory reply to the questions he had put to it in his letters of 30 December 2002, 2 March 2003 and 24 March 2003. The Ombudsman therefore asked the Commission to provide an opinion on this allegation.

The Commission’s opinion

In its opinion, the Commission made the following comments:

The complainant’s letter of 30 December 2002 had unfortunately been mislaid.

The request for funding that had been submitted by the complainant had been examined by the services dealing with the “European Year of People with Disabilities” and the Social Inclusion Programme. Under the Council Decision setting up the “European Year of People with Disabilities”, financial support could only be given to conferences on the European level promoting the “European Year of People with Disabilities” and to the exchange of examples of best practice at the national and European levels. Financial support under the Social Inclusion Programme could only be granted to research and information programmes and to the exchange of examples of best practice.

The Commission was unable to subsidise projects that did not meet the criteria for grants under a specific Community programme. The complainant had therefore been informed in a letter of 23 April 2003 that the riding centre was not eligible for financial support. This had been confirmed by a further letter sent on 6 May 2003.

The Commission very much regretted the delay in dealing with the complainant’s letters and wished to apologise for it. It acknowledged that this was clearly in breach of the Commission’s own code of conduct and stated that it would do its best to ensure that such incidents occurred as rarely as possible.

The complainant's observations

In his observations sent in October 2003, the complainant accepted the Commission’s apologies and pointed out that he understood that letters could be mislaid and remain unanswered. He stressed, however, that his request for information of 30 December 2002 could not be interpreted as a request for funding and that he had not got any further as to the substantive aspect of his case, i.e. the information he had requested.

Further inquiries
The complainant’s further allegations

In a letter addressed to the Ombudsman in September 2003, shortly before the Commission had sent its opinion on the original complaint, the complainant submitted two additional allegations. The complainant asked the Ombudsman to extend his inquiry to the Commission’s alleged failure (1) to reply to a letter he had addressed to Mrs Diamantopoulou on 15 August 2003 and (2) to provide sufficient information regarding the possibility to apply for grants. In his letter to Mrs Diamantopoulou of 15 August 2003, the complainant had pointed out that on the basis of information he had received in the meantime from other sources (in particular, a German MEP) it seemed that funds could have been made available for the riding centre, for example according to the Call for proposals under the Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and Youth Programmes published in April 2003(1), but that the deadlines for applying for such funds (15 January 2003 and 15 June 2003 respectively) had by now expired.

The Ombudsman decided to ask the Commission for an additional opinion on the two further allegations raised in the complainant’s letter of 17 September 2003.

The Commission’s additional opinion

In its additional opinion, the Commission made the following comments:

A reply to the complainant’s letter of 15 August 2003 had been sent on 10 October 2003. The Commission regretted the delay in dealing with this letter.

The complainant appeared to have been led to believe that funding should be possible under one of the multitude of programmes that present some links to the activity of the riding centre (e.g., European Year of People with Disabilities, Community action programme against social exclusion). However, from the information provided by the complainant (financial difficulties of the riding centre due to cuts in national public funding) there could be little doubt that this project would not be eligible under funding programmes directly managed by the Commission.

The Commission acknowledged that it could be difficult to obtain information and claimed that it did its best to help with inquiries. However, it would certainly not have been right to have given the complainant a long list of funding programmes and the precise conditions applying to each of them, thereby possibly reinforcing the false impression that the solution to the riding centre’s financial problems could come from the EU.

Nevertheless, in the latest letter to the complainant the address of the European Information Centre in Berlin had been indicated. The complainant should be able to examine any EU funding programmes that may appear to be relevant to him at this Centre. It was, however, then up to the complainant to apply for specific funding under a particular programme if he so wished.

The complainant’s observations

No observations were received from the complainant regarding the Commission’s additional opinion.

THE DECISION

1 Alleged failure to provide satisfactory reply to letters of 30 December 2002, 2 March 2003 and 24 March 2003

1.1 On 30 December 2002, the complainant, a German citizen, wrote to Mrs Diamantopoulou, the member of the European Commission in charge of the latter’s Directorate-General (“DG”) Employment and Social Affairs, in order to ask for information in relation to the problems faced by a riding centre for disabled and socially disadvantaged children and young people in Berlin. The complainant asked for information as to whether the EU was in a position to grant financial assistance to the riding centre and as to the conditions that had to be fulfilled in order to obtain such assistance. In the absence of a reply, the complainant sent a reminder to Mrs Diamantopoulou on 2 March 2003 and a further reminder to DG Employment and Social Affairs on 24 March 2003. In his complaint to the Ombudsman lodged in April and May 2003, the complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to provide a satisfactory reply to his questions.

1.2 In its opinion, the Commission submitted that the complainant’s letter of 30 December 2002 had unfortunately been mislaid. According to the Commission, the complainant’s request for funding had been examined by its services, and the complainant had been informed by letters of 23 April 2003 and 6 May 2003 that the riding centre was not eligible for financial support. The Commission regretted the delay in dealing with the complainant’s letters and wished to apologise for it. It acknowledged that this delay was clearly in breach of the Commission’s own code of conduct and stated that it would do its best to ensure that such incidents occurred as rarely as possible.

1.3 In his observations on this opinion, the complainant noted that he accepted the Commission’s apologies for the delay that had occurred. He noted, however, that in his view he had not yet received sufficient information as regards the possibility to obtain funding for the riding centre. In the light of these observations, and given that the Commission’s alleged failure to provide sufficient information on the possibility to obtain funding is covered by the complainant’s third allegation which will be discussed later, the Ombudsman considers that there is no need to pursue his inquiry into the first allegation submitted by the complainant.

2 Alleged failure to reply to letter of 15 August 2003

2.1 In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the complainant submitted a further allegation according to which the Commission had failed to reply to a further letter he had sent to Mrs Diamantopoulou on 15 August 2003.

2.2 In its additional opinion on this allegation, the Commission explained that this letter had been answered on 10 October 2003 and expressed its regrets as to the delay that had occurred.

2.3 It is good administrative practice to reply to letters sent by citizens within a reasonable period of time. It should be recalled that Article 14 (1) of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour(2) that was proposed by the Ombudsman and endorsed by the European Parliament, provides that every letter shall receive an acknowledgement of receipt within a period of time of two weeks, except if a substantive reply can be sent within that period. According to the Commission’s own code of conduct(3), a reply to a letter addressed to the Commission shall be sent within fifteen working days from the date of receipt of the letter by the responsible Commission department. If a reply cannot be sent within the deadline mentioned above, a holding reply is to be sent, indicating a date by which the addressee may expect to be sent a reply.

2.4 The Ombudsman notes that the Commission accepts that it failed to reply to the complainant’s letter of 15 August 2003 within a reasonable period of time. Although the Commission has expressed its regrets concerning this delay, regard should be had to the fact that the Commission had already failed to reply to the complainant’s previous letters (of 30 December 2002, 2 March 2003 and 24 March 2003) within a reasonable period of time. It should also be noted that in its opinion sent on 18 September 2003 the Commission had accepted that its delay in replying to the complainant’s previous letters had been clearly in breach of its own code of conduct and stated that it would do its best to ensure that such incidents occurred as rarely as possible. In view of these circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission should have been particularly conscious of the need to reply to the complainant’s letter of 15 August 2003 within a reasonable time. Its failure to do so was an instance of maladministration and a critical remark will therefore be made.

3 Alleged failure to provide sufficient information regarding the possibility to apply for grants

3.1 In the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the complainant submitted a further allegation according to which the Commission had failed to provide sufficient information regarding the possibility to apply for grants for the riding centre.

3.2 In its additional opinion, the Commission expressed the view that the riding centre would not be eligible under funding programmes directly managed by the Commission. It acknowledged that it could be difficult to obtain information and submitted that it did its best to help with inquiries. In the Commission’s view, however, it would certainly not have been right to have given the complainant a long list of funding programmes and the precise conditions applying to each of them, thereby possibly reinforcing the false impression that the solution to the riding centre’s financial problems could come from the EU. The Commission added that in its latest letter to the complainant, it had nevertheless indicated the address of the European Information Centre in Berlin where the complainant should be able to examine any EU funding programmes that may appear to be relevant to him.

3.3 It is good administrative practice to provide information that is being requested by citizens. As the Commission aptly points out in its own code of good administrative behaviour, the public “legitimately expects quality service” from the Commission.

3.4 The Ombudsman notes that already in his letter of 30 December 2002 the complainant had asked for information as to whether the EU was in a position to grant financial assistance to the riding centre and as to the conditions that had to be fulfilled in order to obtain such assistance. The complainant had also mentioned that the riding centre was meant to help the integration of (among others) handicapped persons. In his letter of 24 March 2003, the complainant explicitly referred to the “European Year of People with Disabilities”. Council Decision 2001/903/EC of 3 December 2001 on the European Year of People with Disabilities(4) describes the measures that were to be carried out to achieve the objectives of this “European Year” and contains provisions regarding Community funding. The Ombudsman fails to understand why the Commission omitted to refer the complainant to this decision in its (belated) replies to the complainant's letters so as to allow the complainant to verify whether he should apply for Community funding, particularly in view of the fact that the complainant had asked for the conditions that had to be fulfilled to obtain such funding(5). It should be noted that the complainant had requested the information concerned with a view to assisting a riding school that appears to assist, among others, handicapped people. Particular care should thus have been taken to reply to such requests for information in the “European Year of People with Disabilities”. The Ombudsman cannot accept the Commission’s submission that it would not have been right to have given the complainant a long list of funding programmes and the precise conditions applying to each of them. Only three different funding programmes have been mentioned by the parties in the present inquiry. In this context it should be noted that the Commission itself accepts that it can be difficult for citizens to find information about funding programmes. The need for clear and thorough information would thus be even greater if there had indeed been a large variety of funding programmes that could have been relevant.

3.5 The Ombudsman also notes that in his letter of 15 August 2003 to the Commission, the complainant referred to the Call for proposals under the Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and Youth Programmes that had been published in April 2003(6) and to which his attention had in the meantime been drawn by third parties. According to Point 4 of this Call for proposals, the latter covers three themes, the first of which (Point 4.1) is the ”Integration of people with disabilities”. Projects concerning this theme could inter alia focus on the following issue: “to use sport as a means for the integration of disabled people, especially young people in formal, non-formal and informal education”(7). Applications for a financial contribution from the Community for such projects had to be submitted by 15 June 2003 at the latest. Regardless of whether the riding centre could successfully have applied for a financial contribution under this scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission at least ought to have drawn the complainant’s attention to this Call for proposals which was published in the Official Journal on 23 April 2003, that is to say the same day on which the Commission first wrote to the complainant.

3.6 In view of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission has failed to provide the complainant with sufficient information regarding the possibility to apply for grants in the present case. A critical remark will therefore be made with regard to this aspect of the case as well.

4 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, it is necessary to make the following critical remarks:

(1) It is good administrative practice to reply to letters sent by citizens within a reasonable period of time. The Commission failed to reply to the complainant’s letter of 15 August 2003 within a reasonable period of time, even though it had accepted that its delay in replying to the complainant’s previous letters had been clearly in breach of its own code of conduct and stated that it would do its best to ensure that such incidents occurred as rarely as possible. In view of these circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission should have been particularly conscious of the need to reply to the complainant’s letter of 15 August 2003 within a reasonable time. Its failure to do so was an instance of maladministration.

(2) It is also good administrative practice to provide information that is being requested by citizens. In the present case, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission failed to provide the complainant with sufficient information regarding the possibility to apply for grants. This is a further instance of maladministration.

Given that these aspects of the case concern procedures relating to specific events in the past and that the complainant in the meantime (albeit belatedly and from third parties) appears to have received the information he had been looking for, it is not appropriate to pursue a friendly settlement of the matter. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

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

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) Call for proposals (DG EAC No 15/03): Joint actions Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and Youth Programmes (OJ 2003 no 94, p. 13).

(2) Available on the Ombudsman’s website (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/).

(3) Code of good administrative behaviour of the Commission, available on the Commission’s website (http://ec.europa.eu/secretariat_general/code/index_en.htm#).

(4) OJ 2001 no L 335, p. 15.

(5) It seems that the complainant’s attention was only drawn to the relevant decision by a German MEP to whom he subsequently turned for help.

(6) Call for proposals (DG EAC No 15/03): Joint actions Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci and Youth Programmes (OJ 2003 no 94, p. 13).

(7) See the last indent of section ”Possible content of proposals and expected outcome” of the above-mentioned Call for proposals.