Strasbourg, 20 December 2006

Dear Mr S.,

On 11 February 2006, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the way in which a request for information, made by telephone, had been handled by the European Commission. By e-mails of 16 and 17 March 2006, you provided further information on your complaint.

On 31 March 2006, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission. After a certain delay, of which you were informed by e-mail of 20 July 2006, the Commission sent its opinion in Swedish on 21 August 2006. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished, by 31 October 2006. No observations have been received from you.

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

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the relevant facts are, in summary, the following:

On 6 February 2006, he telephoned the Commission to ask whether the Commission or the Council of the European Union had any obligations or possibilities to express their support for Denmark in its disaccord with a number of Muslim countries. The telephone call was made to the number +3222991111 and, as far as he remembers, it was made just after noon. The person at the Commission who answered his telephone call did not state her name, but explained that the question was too complicated for her to answer. She suggested that he telephone Mr Solana directly and provided him with the following telephone number to do so: +3222856111. At this number, a male person answered. However, the person answering did not state his name either. The complainant asked for Mr Solana and was put through to a female secretary who did not state her name and who told him that he could not speak to Mr Solana. The secretary said that the question was not easy to answer and she put him through to the person responsible for contacts with the press. That person could not answer the question either.

The following day, he contacted the Commission's Representation in Stockholm and got to speak to the Eurojus lawyer, who did state his name. The lawyer provided a reply by e-mail, which, although containing interesting information about the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union, did not answer his question. However, the lawyer was at least helpful and showed a genuine interest in trying to help.

The question thus remained unanswered and the complainant was dissatisfied with the way in which he was treated when contacting Brussels. No one showed any interest in replying to his question or referred him to someone who could reply. The fact that none of the persons to whom he had spoken cared to state his or her name made things even more complicated.

The complainant alleged that, when dealing with his request for information made by telephone on 6 February 2006, the Commission failed to act in accordance with its policy of increased openness and friendliness towards citizens(1).

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion, the European Commission made, in summary, the following comments:

In January-February 2006, the publication of the cartoons depicting Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, provoked a series of reactions both in Europe and in the Arab and Muslim worlds. The services of the Commission's Directorate-General for External Relations, which were dealing with the cartoon crisis at the time, do not recall having received any communication from the complainant asking for information on the matter.

It appears from the complaint to the Ombudsman that the complainant contacted a general Commission telephone number and that he unfortunately was not redirected to the competent services.

During the period concerned, a maximum effort was made carefully to respect all transparency rules and to use all means of communication (telephone, mail, statements, website) to achieve this goal. In the framework of the present case, the Commission services are convinced that the complainant was not in contact with the responsible services.

With regard to the complainant's substantive question pertaining to the Commission's obligation or possibility to express support for Denmark, the President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, made a statement on 15 February 2006, saying that: "(...) I have spoken with the Prime Minister of Denmark and expressed the solidarity of the Commission. I want here today to send my solidarity to the people of Denmark as well; a people who rightly enjoy the reputation as being amongst the most open and tolerant not just in Europe but in the world (...)."

It is thus clear that on 6 February 2006, the complainant did not get in touch with the responsible services within the Commission and the Commission regrets that the complainant's telephone call was not properly redirected to the responsible unit. If his telephone call had been properly redirected, he would have received a complete answer regarding the Commission's views and proposals concerning the crisis.

The complainant's observations

The complainant was invited to submit observations on the Commission's opinion. No observations were received from the complainant.

THE DECISION

1 The Commission's handling of the complainant's request for information

1.1 The complaint concerns the way in which the complainant's request for information, made by telephone, was handled by the Commission. According to the complainant, he telephoned the Commission on 6 February 2006 in order to ask whether the Commission or the Council had any obligations or possibilities to express their support for Denmark in its disaccord with a number of Muslim countries. The telephone call was made to the number +3222991111 and, as far as he remembers, it was made just after noon. The person at the Commission who answered his telephone call did not state her name but she explained that the question was too complicated for her to answer. She suggested that he telephone Mr Solana directly and provided him with a telephone number to do so. However, nobody at the Council could answer his question either. The question thus remained unanswered and the complainant was dissatisfied with the way in which he was treated when contacting Brussels. According to the complainant, no one showed any interest in replying to his question or referred him to someone who could reply. The complainant added that the fact that none of the persons who spoke to him on the telephone cared to state his or her name made things even more complicated. The complainant alleged that, when dealing with his request for information made by telephone on 6 February 2006, the Commission failed to act in accordance with its policy of increased openness and friendliness towards citizens(2).

1.2 The Commission recalled that i n January-February 2006, the publication of the cartoons depicting Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, provoked a series of reactions both in Europe and in the Arab and Muslim worlds. However, the services of the Commission's Directorate-General for External Relations, which were dealing with the cartoon crisis at the time, do not recall having received any communication from the complainant asking for information on the matter. It appears from the complaint to the Ombudsman that the complainant contacted a general Commission telephone number and that he unfortunately was not redirected to the competent services. The Commission regrets that the complainant's telephone call was not properly redirected to the responsible unit. If his telephone call would have been properly redirected, he would have received a complete answer regarding the Commission's views and proposals concerning the crisis.

1.3 With regard to the complainant's substantive question, the Commission explained that its President, Mr Barroso, made a statement on 15 February 2006, saying that: "(...) I have spoken with the Prime Minister of Denmark and expressed the solidarity of the Commission. I want here today to send my solidarity to the people of Denmark as well; a people who rightly enjoy the reputation as being amongst the most open and tolerant not just in Europe but in the world (...)".

1.4 The Ombudsman notes that Article 12(1) of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour(3) ("the Code") stipulates that "[t]he official shall be service-minded, correct, courteous and accessible in relations with the public. When answering correspondence, telephone calls and e-mails, the official shall try to be as helpful as possible and shall reply as completely and accurately as possible to questions which are asked." Article 12(2) of the Code further stipulates that "[i]f the official is not responsible for the matter concerned, he shall direct the citizen to the appropriate official."

1.5 It appears undisputed in the present case that when the complainant contacted the Commission by telephone on 6 February 2006, asking a specific question, he was not directed to the appropriate official, as required by the Code. The Ombudsman recalls that an act that is not in line with the provisions laid down in the Code constitutes an instance of maladministration. The Ombudsman notes, however, that in the present case the Commission has admitted that a mistake was made and expressed its regret in that regard. In its opinion, the Commission further provided a substantive reply to the complainant's question. In light of the fact that the Commission has acknowledged and regretted its mistake, as well as acted to make amends, the Ombudsman finds no grounds to pursue further inquiries into the matter.

1.6 As regards the complainant's argument that the person answering the telephone at the Commission failed to state her name, the Ombudsman notes that the complainant appears to have telephoned the number +3222991111, which according to the Official directory of the European Union is the number of the Commission "operator". The Ombudsman considers that, on the basis of the Code's requirement that officials shall be service-minded, correct, courteous and accessible in relations with the public, it would suffice for a switchboard operator answering a general Commission telephone number to explain that the caller has reached the Commission. Since the complainant did not argue that the switchboard operator failed to do so, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration by the Commission in this regard.

2 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appear to be no grounds further to pursue the issue of the complainant not having been directed to the competent services of the Commission with his request for information.

The Ombudsman has found no maladministration by the Commission as regards the issue of the person answering the telephone not having stated her name.

The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

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

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) The complainant made the same allegation against the Council of the European Union. The complaint against the Council is dealt with as a separate case (complaint 817/2006/TN) and will involve a separate decision.

(2) The complainant made the same allegation against the Council of the European Union. The complaint against the Council is dealt with as a separate case (complaint 817/2006/TN) and will involve a separate decision.

(3) The European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour is available on the Ombudsman's website (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/code/pdf/en/code2005_en.pdf).