THE BACKGROUND TO THE COMPLAINT

1. On 15 December 2005, 'Dansk Magisterforening' (a Danish association, hereinafter 'DM') sent a complaint to the Commission concerning Denmark's alleged breaches of the EU's state aid rules. The Commission sent an acknowledgement of receipt on 7 February 2006, stating that it would carry out the necessary inquiries in relation to the information provided by the complainant, and that it would as soon as possible inform DM of the results of those inquiries.

2. The complainant had not heard from the Commission since then, despite several reminders. The last reminder dated 22 May 2007.

THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE INQUIRY

3. The Ombudsman identified and opened an inquiry into the following allegations and claims.

Allegations:

1. The Commission has failed to inform the complainant of the handling of its state aid complaint.

2. There has been an unreasonable delay in the Commission's handling of the complainant's state aid complaint.

Claims

1. The Commission should adopt a decision on its state aid complaint as soon as possible.

2. The Commission should send the complainant a written account detailing its handling of the state aid complaint.

THE INQUIRY

4. The complaint was sent to the Commission, which submitted its opinion on 24 June 2008. The opinion was forwarded to the complainant, from whom the Ombudsman received no observations.

THE OMBUDSMAN'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

A. Alleged failure to inform the complainant and unreasonable delay in dealing with his complaint and related claims

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

5. In its opinion, the Commission pointed out that, subsequent to the opening of the present inquiry, it had sent the complainant a letter to provide information and explanations relevant to its state aid complaint. The letter provided a written account of the Commission's handling of that complaint. The Commission apologised to the complainant for not having provided information on the handling of the state aid complaint, and regretted that the complainant's reminder of 22 May 2007 had remained unanswered. The letter explained that these omissions were due to an exceptionally high workload and a lack of resources during the time period concerned. The letter furthermore requested additional information from the complainant in order to allow the Commission to make further progress in its examination of the case.

6. In its opinion, the Commission recognised that the above-mentioned regrettable omissions amounted to a breach of the Commission's Code of Good Administrative Behaviour(1).

7. The Ombudsman received no observations from the complainant.

The Ombudsman's assessment

8. The Ombudsman has carefully examined the Commission's letter and opinion summarised above. It appears that the Commission has taken the appropriate action in response to the complaint. The Ombudsman has not received information or comment from the complainant that would contradict this finding.

9. The Commission has furthermore acknowledged and apologised to the complainant for not having respected its Code of Good Administrative Behaviour in this case.

10. In light of the above, the Ombudsman considers that no further inquiries are necessary into the present complaint.

B. Conclusions

On the basis of his inquiries, the Ombudsman closes the case.

The European Commission will be informed of this decision.

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

Done in Strasbourg on 20 November 2008

---

(1) The Code is annexed to the Commission Decision of 17 October 2000 amending its Rules of Procedure (2000/633/EC, ECSC, Euratom), OJ 2000 L 267, p. 63.