Dear Mr C.,
On 21 November 1997 you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman on behalf of the National Association of Regional Game Councils in Ireland concerning the Commission's handling of your Association's complaint under Article 169 of the EC Treaty.
On 15 December 1997, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 9 March 1998 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. On 14 April 1998, I received your observations on the Commission's opinion.
On 5 February 1999, the Ombudsman requested further information from the European Commission on the matter. On 26 March 1999, the Ombudsman received the Commission's reply.
I am writing now to let you know the result of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant claims that the Commission has not replied to the correspondence which his Association has sent in order for the Commission to open a fresh investigation regarding the hunting of Wood Pigeons in Ireland.
Originally, the National Association of Regional Game Councils in Ireland had sent a complaint to the Commission under Article 169 of the EC Treaty against Ireland which was registered in July 1991 under N° P91/582. The Association claimed that shooting Wood Pigeons, Columba palumbus, as practised by tourists was, in contrast to shooting by resident hunters, contrary to Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds(1) by reason of its being over-intensive and contrary to the concept of wise use.
On 13 October 1993, the Commission informed the complainant that the file had in fact been closed and indicated that a fresh investigation might be possible if new elements were provided. On 10 August 1995, the complainant introduced new evidence to the Commission and wished either to re-open the original complaint N° P91/581 or to lodge a new complaint, but did not receive a reply. A reminder letter was sent on 28 June 1996 and the complainant eventually received an acknowledgement letter on 28 August 1996. The Commission did not register the Association's letter as a new complaint and considered that the matter still related to the former complaint. On 3 March 1997, the complainant wrote to the Commission alleging that it was unreasonable that the complaint remained unanswered 19 months after it was lodged before the Commission. On 6 June 1997, the Commission informed the complainant about the response from the Irish authorities. On 21 November 1997, the complainant wrote to the Ombudsman.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion
In its opinion the Commission made the following points:
- There is no record of the original letter of 10 August 1995 on the complaint file;
- As soon as the complainant provided a copy on 26 June 1996, the matter was followed up. A new complaint was not registered, as the matter related to Ireland's response to Complaint P91/582, and it seemed appropriate to put the matter to the Irish authorities in that context;
- On 30 May 1997, the Irish authorities responded and, on 6 June 1997, the Commission wrote to the complainant setting out the information provided by the Irish authorities;
- As regards the delays, the Commission explained that initial delays in the present case were attributable to the time necessary to examine extensive factual claims, and the receipt of additional information from the complainant.
The complainant's observations
In his observations the complainant maintained his complaint. Furthermore, the complainant claims that the information provided in the Commission's statement of 6 June 1997 was incomplete in that only the first page of the information provided by the Irish authorities was enclosed. The complainant had written to the Commission on 13 June 1997, but this letter has not been replied to and the missing section of the Irish authorities' response has not been received.

FURTHER INQUIRIES

On 5 February 1999, the Ombudsman sent a letter to the Commission requesting further information. On 26 March 1999, the Commission replied to the Ombudsman's request explaining that it had replied to the complainant's letter of 13 June 1997. The Commission specified that the enclosure of the first page of a letter from the Irish Permanent Representation to the complainant was the result of an administrative mistake. Furthermore, the Commission had decided to open a new complaint file and it was taking the matter up again with the Irish authorities.
On 3 June 1999, the European Ombudsman Secretariat contacted the complainant by telephone in order to establish whether the complainant was satisfied with the way the Commission had responded to the Ombudsman's request for further information. The complainant explained that he understood that the sending of the first page of the Irish authorities document was a administrative mistake. Furthermore, he expressed satisfaction about the way the Commission had opened a new complaint file on the matter.

THE DECISION

1 The handling of the National Association of Regional Game Councils in Ireland's complaint under Article 169 of the EC Treaty
1.1 The complainant alleges that the Commission did not reply accordingly to correspondence his Association sent in order to initiate a new investigation into the hunting of Wood Pigeon in Ireland.
1.2 The Commission in its opinion explains that there is no record of the original letter of 10 August 1995 on the complaint file. However, as soon as the complainant provided a copy, the matter was followed up. A new complaint was not registered at the time, as the matter related to Complaint P91/582.
1.3 With regard to the complainant's letter of 13 June 1997, the Commission did on 23 March 1999 respond to that letter. In that letter the Commission explained that the enclosure of the first page of a letter from the Irish authorities was an administrative mistake and that the Commission is obliged to refer a person requesting such a document to the author of the document.
1.4 As regards the hunting of Wood Pigeon in Ireland, the Commission in its complementary opinion accepts that, although no adverse effect arises for the species in Ireland as a result, the Irish hunting season appears to be too long to be compliant with Article 7 of Directive 79/409/EEC. The Commission is opening a new complaint file and taking the matter up again with the Irish authorities.
1.5 The complainant has explained that he understood that the enclosure of the first page of a letter from the Irish authorities was an administrative mistake. Furthermore, the complainant expressed satisfaction about the fact that the Commission has opened a new investigation into the matter.
1.6 The Ombudsman deplores the fact that the complainant's letters of 10 August 1995 and 13 June 1997 remained unanswered for such a long period of time. As the Ombudsman has stated in similar cases, the Commission as a public administration has the duty to properly reply to the queries of the citizens. However, in the present case the Ombudsman notes that the complainant has indicated that he is now satisfied with the outcome of the complaint, therefore, no further remark by the Ombudsman appears to be necessary.
Conclusion
It appears from the European Commission's complementary comments and the complainant's observations 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

---

(1) OJ 103, 25.4.1979, p.1.