Strasbourg, 20 October 2006

Dear Mr S.,

On 10 June 2005, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning alleged maladministration by the European Commission. This complaint concerned (i) the Commission's alleged failure properly to reply to your letters of 19 April and 6 May 2005 and (ii) matters that appeared to relate to requests for access to documents.

My Office thereupon contacted the Commission by telephone in order to ascertain whether further information had been sent to you in the meantime.

On 22 June 2005, the Commission forwarded to me a copy of a letter it had addressed to you that day.

On 24 June 2005, the Commission forwarded to me a copy of a further letter it had addressed to you on 9 June 2005.

On 29 June 2005, I decided to open an inquiry and to ask the Commission for an opinion on its alleged failure properly to reply to your letters of 19 April and 6 May 2005. I informed you accordingly the same day. In this letter, I pointed out that I was unable to identify the subject of your grievances as far as access to documents was concerned and that this aspect of your complaint would therefore not be covered by the inquiry I had opened. However, I drew your attention to the fact that you could lodge a new complaint concerning this issue.

On 8 and 29 July 2005, you sent me further letters concerning your complaint. In my letter of 30 August 2005, I informed you that I was still unable to identify the subject of your grievances as far as access to documents was concerned. I again informed you that you were free to submit a new complaint concerning this issue to me.

The Commission sent its opinion on 8 November 2005. In this opinion, the Commission expressed the view that my inquiry only concerned procedural issues.

On 11 November 2005, I wrote to inform the Commission that, contrary to what it had assumed, I also wished to obtain its comments on the substance of the approach that it had adopted towards the requests for information you had made on 19 April and 6 May 2005. You were informed accordingly the same day. A copy of the Commission's opinion was forwarded to you on that occasion. Given that the case concerned the issue of data protection, I considered it useful to inform the European Data Protection Supervisor as well.

By letter of 22 November 2005, you informed me that you intended to comment on the Commission's opinion by the end of January 2006 at the latest. In my reply of 6 December 2005, I pointed out that the Commission's reply to my letter of 11 November 2005 would be forwarded to you for your observations and that there was therefore no need already to send observations at that point in time.

I had asked the Commission to submit its reply by 31 December 2005 at the latest. On 10 February 2006, the Commission asked for an extension of time until 28 February 2006, which I granted on 15 February 2006.

On 27 February 2006, the Commission asked for a further extension until 31 March 2006, which I granted on 2 March 2006.

You were informed accordingly on 2 March 2006.

On 30 March 2006, the Commission sent me its reply to my letter of 11 November 2006. This reply was drafted in English. A translation into German was submitted to me on 30 April 2006. I forwarded it to you on 2 May 2006, with an invitation to submit observations, which you sent on 31 May 2006.

On 8 June 2006, I wrote to the Commission in order to ask for further information in relation to this case.

On 21 July 2006, you sent me further comments.

On 26 July 2006, the Commission sent its reply to my letter of 8 June 2006 and I forwarded it to you on the same day for your observations, which you sent on 8 August 2006.

In a fax sent on 12 September 2006, you asked when you could expect a reply to your letters of 21 July and 8 August 2006.

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

THE COMPLAINT

On 10 June 2005, the complainant (apparently a German national living in Italy) submitted a complaint to the Ombudsman. This complaint concerned (i) the Commission's alleged failure properly to reply to the complainant's letters of 19 April and 6 May 2005 and (ii) matters that appeared to relate to a request for access to documents.

1) Request for information

On 19 April 2005, the complainant wrote to Ms K., the Commission's Eurojus(1) Adviser in Germany, in order to ask for information on the nationality of 21 persons who appeared to be (or to have been) Commission officials, on the functions that they had exercised at certain dates in the past and on the dates when they had started and stopped working as officials, whether for the Commission or for other Community institutions. The complainant also asked for information on the proposed directive on services. He added that he did not have access to the internet.

In her reply of 29 April 2005, Ms K. provided information on the proposed directive. She stated, however, that she was not in a position to provide information on the nationality of the officials concerned.

In a letter of 6 May 2005, the complainant thanked Ms K. for the information she had sent and asked whether she could at least provide information on the official function and field of duty of the relevant officials or, if this should not be possible, contact details for the Commission services concerned to allow him to ask them directly.

2) Access to documents

The complainant also complained about what he appeared to consider the Commission's refusal to grant access to documents. However, the complainant did not submit copies of the requests for access that he had made.

THE INQUIRY

The Ombudsman's approach

The Ombudsman considered that the second part of the complaint was unclear. The complaint furthermore did not contain any documents to show that the prior approaches foreseen under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents(2) had been made. The Ombudsman therefore rejected this aspect of the complaint on the basis of Article 2(3) of the Ombudsman's Statute. However, the complainant was informed that he had the possibility of submitting a new complaint concerning this issue, provided that he clarified the subject-matter and submitted the relevant supporting documents.

As regards the first of the issues raised by the complainant, the Ombudsman's Office contacted the Commission by telephone in order to ascertain whether further information had been sent to the complainant in the meantime.

On 22 June 2005, the Commission forwarded to the Ombudsman a copy of a letter it had addressed to the complainant that day. In this letter, the Commission's Representation in Germany took the view that the Commission was not at liberty to provide the information requested by the complainant on 19 April 2005 ("disclosure of the nationality of the 21 officials, of the date when they began and ended their service and of their function") because Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data(3) ("Regulation 45/2001") made the disclosure of this personal data impossible.

On 24 June 2005, the Commission forwarded to the Ombudsman a copy of a further letter it had addressed to the complainant on 9 June 2005. In this letter, Ms K. explained the role of the citizens' advice service of the Commission and pointed out that she was ready to help if the complainant had specific questions concerning EU law or problems with national authorities related to EU law. Ms K. further provided an internet address where information and contact details of the Commission's Directorate-General ("DG") Personnel and Administration could be found. Ms K. added that this internet address provided access to the directory of the Commission's services and that contact details of individual members of the Commission's staff could be found there. The postal address of the Commission's Secretariat-General and the telephone number of the Commission's switchboard were also provided.

The Ombudsman noted that the complainant did not appear to have access to the internet. In view of this fact and in the light of the contents of the Commission's letter of 22 June 2005, the Ombudsman considered it appropriate to open an inquiry.

Further correspondence

In a letter sent on 8 July 2005, the complainant informed the Ombudsman that on 2 July 2005 he had asked the Commission's Representation in Germany to provide him with information on the rules relating to data protection(4). The complainant also made comments concerning the second part of his complaint.

In a further letter sent on 27 July 2005 to both the Commission and the Ombudsman, the complainant made certain further comments, most of which did not concern the subject of the present inquiry.

In his reply of 30 August 2006, the Ombudsman pointed out that e ven after having examined these letters, the subject of the complainant's grievances concerning access to documents remained unclear. The Ombudsman informed the complainant that if he should wish to complain about a refusal by the Commission to provide information he could turn to him again, provided that he submitted precise indications as to what information he had asked the Commission to provide and as to how and when the Commission had refused to provide this information.

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion, the Commission made the following comments:

The Ombudsman had not admitted the complainant's claim for data, but only the complaint concerning the alleged failure properly to reply to the complainant's letters of 19 April and 6 May 2005. The Commission therefore understood the inquiry to relate to whether its replies had been framed in an appropriate manner and communicated as quickly as possible, as required by Article 4 of the Commission's Code of Conduct, and not to the substantive answer given to the request for access to data.

The letter of 29 April 2005 explained that the refusal to provide the requested data on the 21 Commission officials was based on the restricted mandate of the Eurojus Adviser who was limited to providing information on EU law and support for citizens vis-à-vis national authorities in EU-related matters. The letter clearly informed the complainant that the Eurojus Adviser did not have the mandate to deal with such requests. The Commission nevertheless regretted not having directed the complainant to another service which could have reviewed his request for personal data under Regulation 45/2001. This was in any event rectified in the Commission's letter of 9 June 2005.

In his letter of 6 May 2005, the complainant had limited his original request to the provision of the official function and field of duty of the 21 relevant officials and alternatively to naming the relevant institution, address and other coordinates of the service of the Commission.

The Commission regretted that the letter of 9 June 2005 responding to the complainant's letter of 6 May 2005 had taken more than one month. However, the letter of 9 June 2005 had contained a reference to the Commission's Secretariat-General and provided an internet link to DG Personnel and Administration and had advised the complainant to contact these two services for further information.

While the complaint with regard to the substantive answer on access to data had been found to be inadmissible by the Ombudsman, some few comments should nevertheless be made on the matter in the interest of clarity. The data originally requested fell under Article 8 of Regulation 45/2001 which provides that personal data shall only be transferred to recipients subject to the national law adopted for the implementation of Directive 95/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data(5) "(a) if the recipient establishes that the data are necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or subject to the exercise of public authority, or (b) if the recipient establishes the necessity of having the data transferred and if there is no reason to assume that the data subject's legitimate interests might be prejudiced."

Since neither of these two grounds had been adequately raised by the complainant, the data originally requested had not been sent to the complainant. As regards the modified request set out in the complainant's letter of 6 May 2005, the reply of 9 June 2005 had given a reference to the Commission including the telephone number of the switchboard. Moreover an internet link to DG Personnel and Administration had been provided.

In conclusion, the complainant had been provided with all the information that could be given to him.

Further inquiries

After careful consideration of the Commission's opinion, it appeared that further inquiries were necessary.

The Ombudsman's first request for further information

By letter of 11 November 2005, the Ombudsman informed the Commission that its view that the opinion did not need to deal with the substance of the request for information was erroneous. He therefore invited the Commission to submit any further comments it might wish to make regarding this aspect of the case.

Although the present case concerned a request for information (and not for access to documents), the Ombudsman suggested that the Commission might find it useful to refer to the European Data Protection Supervisor's Background Paper no 1 of July 2005 on 'Public access to documents and data protection' in this context.

A copy of this letter was forwarded to the European Data Protection Supervisor (to whom the complainant had copied several of his letters).

The Commission's reply

In its reply, the Commission basically repeated the comments it had already made in its opinion. The Commission added that its letter of 9 June 2005 had provided an internet link to the Commission's directory of staff on the Europa server. This directory contained information on the Commission's staff including a brief job title describing the function of each member of staff.

The complainant's observations

In his observations, which also concerned other complaints that the complainant had lodged with the Ombudsman, the complainant noted that he did not possess private access to the internet. The complainant appeared to submit that the Commission ought to have provided him with appropriate and understandable information within a reasonable period of time and in a non-bureaucratic way. In addition to that, the complainant made various other comments, including what appeared to be accusations against Italian authorities.

The Ombudsman's second request for further information

On 8 June 2006, the Ombudsman wrote to the Commission in order to ask for further information in relation to this case. In this letter, the Ombudsman noted that, i n its opinion, the Commission had pointed out that the directory to which the complainant had been referred contained information on the Commission's staff including a brief job title describing the function of each member of staff. However, the complainant had informed the Commission, both in his letter of 19 April 2005 and in his letter of 2 July 2005, that he did not have access to the internet. The Ombudsman therefore asked the Commission to explain whether it considered that in these circumstances it had properly replied to the complainant's request for information.

The complainant's letter of 21 July 2006

In a letter sent by fax on 21 July 2006, the complainant submitted comments that, according to him, concerned both the present case and two other complaints he had submitted to the Ombudsman. It seemed that the complainant wished to make further allegations of maladministration against Italian authorities, the Commission and the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament.

The Commission's reply to the request for further information

In its reply to the Ombudsman's request for further information, the Commission acknowledged that the complainant had informed it that he did not dispose of an internet access. The Commission noted, however, that it had also provided the complainant with its postal addresses and telephone and fax numbers. It added that it had assumed that the complainant had only meant to say that he did not have internet access at home, which in its view justified indicating an internet address to be used at a public point of access to the internet. According to the Commission, it was only in a letter of 6 August 2005 that the complainant had mentioned his invalidity and the fact that he lived below the poverty line.

The Commission added that under the current circumstances and regretting that this had not been done earlier, it was of course perfectly willing to provide the complainant with a paper copy of the information available on the internet concerning the officials listed in the complainant's request.

The Commission enclosed a list setting out the names of the 21 persons mentioned by the complainant and the unit where these officials worked or the date when they had ceased working for the Commission. With regard to one of these persons, the list indicates that he or she was unknown to the Commission. The list contained a note according to which all the officials who were still in service at the Commission could be contacted via the central switchboard telephone number (+32-22961111).

The complainant's observations

In his observations, the complainant pointed out that his request for information had served the purpose of determining which Community institution was responsible for not intervening with a view to ensuring respect for fundamental rights in Italy. In the complainant's view, however, the information that had been provided did not allow any verification of the responsibilities of services of the Commission. He also noted that he was unable to understand the codes used by the Commission. The complainant therefore asked for concrete information as to whether the 21 officials concerned were entitled to support or tolerate the infringements of fundamental rights in Italy to which he claimed to have been subjected.

THE DECISION

1 Introductory remarks

1.1 The complaint that was lodged by the complainant (apparently a German national living in Italy) with the Ombudsman in June 2005 concerned (i) the Commission's alleged failure properly to reply to the complainant's letters of 19 April and 6 May 2005 and (ii) matters that appeared to relate to requests for access to documents. The Ombudsman considered that the second part of the complaint was unclear. He therefore opened an inquiry only as regards the first aspect of the complaint. However, the Ombudsman informed the complainant that he could renew his complaint regarding the second issue, provided that he clarified his case and that he submitted the necessary supporting documents.

1.2 In his observations on the Commission's opinion and on the Commission's replies to the two requests for further information that were made in this case, the complainant made various comments that were not directly related to the present complaint, including what appeared to be accusations against Italian authorities. It should be noted that the Ombudsman can only deal with complaints directed at Community institutions or bodies. He would therefore not be in a position to deal with a complaint against the authorities of a Member State. In a further letter sent on 21 July 2006 and marked as concerning the present case and two other complaints (complaint 2903/2005/GG and complaint 99/2006/WP) that he had lodged with the Ombudsman, the complainant seemed to wish to make further allegations of maladministration against Italian authorities, the Commission and the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament. Given that the comments that the complainant made in this letter are not relevant for the present inquiry, they will not be examined here. The Ombudsman will deal with these comments in the framework of complaints 2903/2005/GG and 99/2006/WP.

1.3 In its opinion that was submitted on 8 November 2005, the Commission took the view that the present complaint only concerned procedural issues and not the substance of the approach that it had adopted towards the complainant's requests for information. The Commission nevertheless added some comments on this issue as well. On 11 November 2005, the Ombudsman informed the Commission that the present inquiry also concerned the said substantive aspect and asked it to submit any further comments it might wish to make regarding this aspect of the case by 31 December 2005 at the latest. The Commission twice asked for an extension of time. In the end, the reply was only submitted on 30 March 2006. Given that this reply contained hardly any arguments that had not already been put forward in the original opinion, the Ombudsman is at a loss to understand why it took the Commission 4 ½ months to submit this reply. However, since the complainant has not made any specific allegation concerning this delay, this aspect of the case does not need to be examined further.

2 Alleged failure properly to reply to requests for information

2.1 On 19 April 2005, the complainant wrote to Ms K., the Commission's Eurojus(6) Adviser in Germany, in order to ask for information on the nationality of 21 persons who appeared to be (or to have been) Commission officials, on the functions that they had exercised at certain dates in the past and on the dates when they had started and stopped working as officials, whether for the Commission or for other Community institutions. The complainant also asked for information on the proposed directive on services. In her reply of 29 April 2005, Ms K. provided information on the proposed directive. She stated, however, that she was not in a position to provide information on the nationality of the officials concerned.

In a letter of 6 May 2005, the complainant thanked Ms K. for the information she had sent and asked whether she could at least provide information on the official function and field of duty of the relevant officials or, if this should not be possible, contact details for the Commission services concerned to allow him to ask them directly.

In his complaint to the Ombudsman that was lodged on 10 June 2005, the complainant alleged that the Commission had failed properly to deal with his two letters of 19 April and 6 May 2006.

2.2 On 9 June 2005, Ms K. wrote a further letter to the complainant in which she provided an internet address where information and contact details of the Commission's Directorate-General ("DG") Personnel and Administration could be found. Ms K. added that this internet address provided access to the directory of the Commission's services and that contact details of individual members of the Commission's staff could be found there.

On 22 June 2005, the Commission's Representation in Germany addressed a letter to the complainant in which it took the view that the Commission was not at liberty to provide the information requested by the complainant on 19 April 2005 because Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data(7) ("Regulation 45/2001") made the disclosure of this personal data impossible.

2.3 In view of this state of affairs, the Ombudsman considered it appropriate to open an inquiry.

2.4 In its opinion on the complaint, the Commission submitted that the letter of 29 April 2005 had explained that the refusal to provide the requested data on the 21 Commission officials was based on the restricted mandate of the Eurojus Adviser and that the letter had clearly informed the complainant that the Eurojus Adviser did not have the mandate to deal with such requests. The Commission nevertheless regretted not having directed the complainant to another service which could have reviewed his request for personal data under Regulation 45/2001. According to the Commission, this omission had however been rectified by its letter of 9 June 2005.

The Commission took the view that in his letter of 6 May 2005, the complainant had limited his original request to the provision of the official function and field of duty of the 21 relevant officials and alternatively to naming the relevant institution, address and other coordinates of the service of the Commission. It expressed regrets at the fact that the letter of 9 June 2005 responding to the complainant's letter of 6 May 2005 had taken more than one month. However, the Commission stressed that the letter of 9 June 2005 had contained a reference to the Commission's Secretariat-General as well as an internet link to DG Personnel and Administration and had advised the complainant to contact these two services for further information.

2.5 In its opinion, the Commission took the view that it did not need to provide a view on the substantive issue, that is to say whether it was obliged to provide the information requested by the complainant. The Commission added nevertheless that the data originally requested fell under Article 8 of Regulation 45/2001 which provides that personal data shall only be transferred "(a) if the recipient establishes that the data are necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or subject to the exercise of public authority, or (b) if the recipient establishes the necessity of having the data transferred and if there is no reason to assume that the data subject's legitimate interests might be prejudiced." According to the Commission, the data had not been sent to the complainant since none of these two grounds had been adequately raised by him. As regards the modified request set out in the complainant's letter of 6 May 2005, the Commission submitted that the reply of 9 June 2005 had given a reference to the Commission including the telephone number of the switchboard. Moreover an internet link to Directorate-General ("DG") Personnel and Administration had been provided. The Commission concluded that the complainant had been provided with all the information that could be given to him.

2.6 After having examined the opinion, the Ombudsman informed the Commission that its view that the opinion did not need to deal with the substance of the request for information was erroneous. He therefore invited the Commission to submit any further comments it might wish to make regarding this aspect of the case.

2.7 In its reply, the Commission basically repeated the comments it had already made in its opinion. The Commission added that its letter of 9 June 2005 had provided an internet link to the Commission's directory of staff. This directory contained information on the Commission's staff including a brief job title describing the function of each member of staff.

2.8 In his observations, the complainant noted that he did not possess private access to the internet. The complainant appeared to submit that the Commission ought to have provided him with appropriate and understandable information within a reasonable period of time and in a non-bureaucratic way.

2.9 On 8 June 2006, the Ombudsman wrote to the Commission in order to ask for further information in relation to this case. In this letter, the Ombudsman noted that i n its opinion, the Commission had pointed out that the directory to which the complainant had been referred contained information on the Commission's staff including a brief job title describing the function of each member of staff. However, the complainant had informed the Commission, both in his letter of 19 April 2005 and in his letter of 2 July 2005, that he did not have access to the internet. The Ombudsman therefore asked the Commission to explain whether it considered that in these circumstances it had properly replied to the complainant's request for information.

2.10 In its reply, the Commission noted that it had assumed that the complainant had only meant to say that he did not have internet access at home, which in its view justified indicating an internet address to be used at a public point of access to the internet. According to the Commission, it was only in a letter of 6 August 2005 that the complainant had mentioned his invalidity and the fact that he lived below the poverty line. The Commission added that under the current circumstances and regretting that this had not been done earlier, it was of course perfectly willing to provide the complainant with a paper copy of the information available on the internet concerning the officials listed in the complainant's request. Together with this reply, the Commission submitted a list setting out the names of the 21 persons mentioned by the complainant and the unit where these officials worked or the date when they had ceased working for the Commission. With regard to one of these persons, the list indicates that he or she was unknown to the Commission. The list contained a note according to which all the officials who were still in service at the Commission could be contacted via the central switchboard telephone number (+32-22961111).

2.11 In his observations, the complainant pointed out that his request for information had served the purpose of determining which Community institution was responsible for not intervening with a view to ensuring respect for fundamental rights in Italy. In the complainant's view, however, the information that had been provided did not allow any verification of the responsibilities of services of the Commission. He also noted that he was unable to understand the codes used by the Commission. The complainant therefore asked for concrete information as to whether the 21 officials concerned were entitled to support or tolerate the infringements of fundamental rights in Italy to which he claimed to have been subjected.

2.12 The Ombudsman notes that the complainant made two requests for information, one on 19 April 2005 and the second on 6 May 2005. The second request was sent after the complainant had received the answer that the Commission's Eurojus Adviser had given to the first request on 29 April 2005. The Commission has explained that the Eurojus Adviser had not been in a position to provide the data requested by the complainant and that this had been explained in the letter of 29 April 2005. The Ombudsman considers these explanations to be satisfactory. In its opinion, the Commission expressed its regrets at the fact that the letter of 29 April 2005 did not direct the complainant to another service which could have dealt with his request for personal data. In the light of this statement, and bearing in mind that the complainant's letter of 6 May 2005 contained no criticism of the reply of 29 April 2005, but on the contrary thanked the sender for the information she had provided, the Ombudsman considers that no maladministration can be found as regards this reply.

2.13 The Ombudsman notes that the Commission only replied to the second request (which was made on 6 May 2005) on 9 June 2005. However, the Commission has expressed its regret at the fact that the reply was sent over a month after the request had been made. It should also be noted that the delay was not very lengthy. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that there are no grounds to pursue his inquiry into this aspect of the complaint.

2.14 As regards the substance of the request for information, the Commission has taken the view that, in his letter of 6 May 2005, the complainant had limited his original request to the provision of the official function and field of duty of the 21 relevant officials and alternatively to naming the relevant institution, address and other coordinates of the service of the Commission. The Ombudsman considers that the letter of 6 May 2005 can indeed be understood in the sense that the complainant no longer insisted on receiving all the information he had requested in his letter on 19 April 2005. It therefore falls to be examined whether the Commission properly dealt with the request for information in the form it had received by the letter of 6 May 2005.

2.15 In his letter of 6 May 2005, the complainant asked whether he could at least be provided with information on the official function and field of duty of the relevant officials or, if this should not be possible, with contact details for the Commission services concerned to allow him to ask them directly. It emerges from the wording of this request, that the complainant considered the alternative as being acceptable only in case the provision of information on the official function and field of duty of the relevant officials should prove to be impossible.

2.16 The Ombudsman notes that in its letter of 22 June 2005, the Commission took the view that the information the complainant had requested on 19 April 2005 could not be provided on the grounds that it constituted personal data and that the conditions for disclosing it set by Regulation 45/2001 were not fulfilled. It is not clear why the Commission thus replied to a request that had, as the Commission itself stressed in its opinion on the present case, been limited and thus superseded by the request made on 6 May 2005. Given that only this latter request needs to be examined here, the Ombudsman considers that the letter of 22 June 2005 is only relevant for the present case to the extent that it could also be applied to this request. In its letter of 22 June 2005, the Commission expressed the view that the "disclosure of the nationality of the 21 officials, of the date when they began and ended their service and of their function" would be incompatible with Regulation 45/2001. If the Commission had maintained this view, this would of course have meant that it would not have considered itself able to comply with the request made on 6 May 2005 to inform the complainant about the "official function" of the 21 officials concerned. However, the Ombudsman considers it obvious that information on the official function of an official cannot be considered to constitute personal data that the Commission would be entitled to withhold. In the Ombudsman's view, citizens are clearly entitled to be informed about the functions of a civil servant.

2.17 The Ombudsman considers that the Commission itself no longer appears to maintain that a request for information on the official functions of a civil servant ought to be rejected on the grounds of data protection rules. In its reply to the Ombudsman's first request for further information, the Commission pointed out that its letter of 9 June 2005 had provided an internet link to the Commission's directory of staff and that this directory contained information on the Commission's staff including a brief job title describing the function of each member of staff. The Ombudsman notes that this directory indeed provides such information. However, the complainant had made it clear, both in his original request for information of 19 April 2005 and in his further letter of 2 July 2005, that he did not have access to the internet. In these circumstances, a service-minded administration cannot limit itself to a simple reference to an internet site in order to deal with a request for information. In the Ombudsman's view, the availability of public points of access to the internet does not affect this conclusion. Apart from the fact that there is no guarantee that such points of access are within easy reach of a citizen, the Ombudsman considers that a citizen cannot be expected to start using the internet for the sole reason of making it easier for the EU administration to comply with its duty to provide citizens with the information they requested.

2.18 In response to the Ombudsman's second request for further information, the Commission has submitted a list setting out information with regard to the 21 persons named by the complainant. This list was drafted in English. Given that the complainant had approached the Commission in German, the Ombudsman considers that it would have been appropriate to make this information available in German as well. However, since the complainant has not criticised the Commission's choice of language, the Ombudsman considers that there is no need to pursue this aspect of the case.

2.19 The complainant has criticised the Commission's list on the grounds that it contains codes that he does not understand. The Ombudsman considers that a citizen can indeed not generally be expected to know the meaning of abbreviations such as "DG" (Directorate-General), "OLAF" (European Anti-Fraud Office), "DG RELEX" (Directorate-General External Relations) or "DG JLS" (Directorate-General Justice, Freedom and Security). In addition to that, the Ombudsman notes that the Commission's list only indicates the service in which the official concerned works, but does not (or only insufficiently) specify the official function and field of duty. However, the Commission's directory of staff that is available on the internet(8) contains, as the Commission itself noted in an earlier reply to the Ombudsman, a brief job title describing the function of each member of staff. To cite only one example, the list provided by the Commission indicates that Mrs M. works in "DG JLS, Directorate B". The Commission's directory of staff also states that Mrs M. is "Assistant to the Director". Given that this information is thus freely available on the internet and that it concerns the official function and field of duty of the official concerned, the Ombudsman fails to understand why the Commission did not provide this complementary information to the complainant.

It is true that the Commission supplied its switchboard telephone number, thus enabling the complainant to contact the officials concerned in order to obtain further information. It should be noted, however, that in his letter of 6 May 2005 the complainant had asked for contact details for the Commission services concerned to allow him to ask the relevant officials directly in case it should not be possible at least to provide him with information on the official function and field of duty of these officials. Since the Commission was, as has been explained above, definitely in a position to provide such information, supplying the telephone number of its switchboard cannot be considered to constitute a satisfactory reply to the complainant's request for information in these circumstances.

2.20 The Ombudsman notes, however, that in his observations on the Commission's reply to the second request for further information the complainant did not criticise the absence of more detailed information on the official function and field of duty of the officials concerned as such. The complainant instead submitted that the information that had been provided did not allow any verification of the responsibilities of services of the Commission and that what he wished to obtain was concrete information as to whether the 21 officials concerned were entitled to support or tolerate the infringements of fundamental rights in Italy to which he claimed to have been subjected. It thus emerges that the complainant is not interested in information about the official function and field of duty of the officials concerned as such, but seems to wish to call into question the substance of the approach adopted by the Commission with regard to the alleged infringements of fundamental rights in Italy. However, this is an entirely different matter that has nothing to do with the Commission's handling of the complainant's requests for information that is the subject of the present inquiry. In other words, it now emerges that the complainant would not be likely to be satisfied even if the Commission provided him with the information on the official function and field of duty of the officials concerned that is available on the internet and that he requested in his letter of 6 May 2005.

2.21 In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that there are no grounds to pursue the present inquiry. The complainant is of course free to submit a new complaint as regards the substance of the approach adopted by the Commission with regard to the alleged infringements of fundamental rights in Italy, provided that the subject-matter of such a complaint is clearly set out.

3 Conclusion

In view of the preceding considerations, the Ombudsman considers that there are no grounds to pursue the present inquiry. The Ombudsman therefore closes the inquiry.

The President of the Commission will also be informed of this decision. A copy of the decision will also be sent to the European Data Protection Supervisor for his information.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) According to the document "European information networks and outlets for citizens overseen by the European Commission" which is available on the Commission's website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/relays/index_en.htm), Eurojus is an advisory service on legal matters attached to the Commission's Representations in the Member States. It is available free of charge to all citizens who need advice on their rights under Community law.

(2) OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.

(3) OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1.

(4) In this letter, a copy of which was submitted to the Ombudsman, the complainant again stressed that he did not have access to the internet.

(5) OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31.

(6) According to the document "European information networks and outlets for citizens overseen by the European Commission" which is available on the Commission's website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/relays/index_en.htm), Eurojus is an advisory service on legal matters attached to the Commission's Representations in the Member States. It is available free of charge to all citizens who need advice on their rights under Community law.

(7) OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1.

(8) http://ec.europa.eu/staffdir/plsql/gsys_tel.display_search?pLang=EN.