Search inquiries

The case concerned the European Commission's refusal to grant the complainant, an interested party, access to the Union industry's initial request to extend anti-dumping duties on ammonium products from Russia. The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the Commission's refusal was not grounded in light of the applicable provisions of the anti-dumping Regulation and may have impaired the complainant's rights of defence in that procedure. She thus recommended to the Commission that it disclose the relevant request.

Although the Commission disagreed with the Ombudsman's finding of maladministration, it accepted her recommendation to disclose the relevant request. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.

The case concerned a request by a Norwegian company for public access to documents relating to contacts between the Commission and Italy aimed at verifying if Italy was in compliance with the rights of free movement of goods, namely in relation to limitations placed on the use of "snow socks" (snow socks are designed to serve the same purpose as snow chains).

The request was refused by the Commission on the basis that the disclosure of the documents could undermine an on-going investigation. The Ombudsman inquired into the issue. Access to the requested documents was then granted, leading the Ombudsman to conclude that the issue had been settled by the Commission.

The complainant, a French national, changed his residence from Belgium to France. He applied for the registration in France of his vehicle, previously registered in Belgium. The French authorities refused to recognise the roadworthiness test certificate issued by the Belgian authorities and required that the complainant's vehicle undergo a complete roadworthiness test in France as a condition for its registration. The complainant therefore complained to the European Commission that France violated EU law on freedom of movement. The Commission opened infringement proceedings. After having received clarification from the French authorities, it decided to close the complainant's case. The complainant did not agree with that decision and turned to the Ombudsman.

In the opinion it sent to the Ombudsman, the Commission considered, in sum, that EU law does not oblige a Member State, when re-registering vehicles previously registered in another Member State, to recognise automatically all or part of the roadworthiness test carried out in the latter.

In reply to the Ombudsman's further questions on the interpretation of the relevant case-law, the Commission changed its original view. It explained that, following a recent judgment of the Court of Justice, it decided to review its initial decision closing the complainant's infringement case and to seek further clarification from the French authorities. The Ombudsman thus considered that, by doing so, the Commission has settled the complaint. He therefore closed the case.

The complainant, a French farmers' association, complained to the European Commission that the French authorities failed to comply with the provisions of EU law concerning parallel imports of veterinary medicinal products (VMPs). It argued that France did not allow vets, farmers, pharmacists, and other retail distributors to have access to the simplified authorisation procedure for parallel imports of VMPs. In addition, the French authorities refused to grant access to the simplified procedure for parallel imports of VMPs to wholesale dealers authorised to distribute VMPs in other Member States.

The Commission opened infringement proceedings and sent a letter of formal notice to the French authorities. Subsequently, the French authorities modified the national legislation concerning the authorisation procedure for parallel imports of VMPs. The Commission therefore decided to close the case. The complainant alleged that the arguments provided by the Commission in its decision closing the infringement complaint were insufficient and unconvincing. It claimed that the Commission should either cancel its decision to close the infringement complaint, or open a new infringement proceeding against the French authorities.

In its opinion, the Commission first took the view that personal parallel imports of VMPs may not be authorised if the relevant provisions of Directive 2001/82/EC of the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products are not complied with. The Commission noted, in sum, that parallel imports of VMPs are in general open to farmers, vets, and pharmacists or to wholesale dealers if they comply with specific provisions of that Directive relating to distribution, possession, and dispensing of VMPs and pharmacovigilance.

The Ombudsman considered that the Commission did not provide an appropriate justification for its decision to close the complainant's infringement complaint. He thus made a draft recommendation to the Commission. Following his draft recommendation, the Commission decided to open new infringement proceedings concerning the obstacles met by wholesale dealers who attempt to make parallel imports of VMPs. The Ombudsman therefore considered that the Commission had, so far, taken adequate measures to implement his draft recommendation. He therefore decided to close the case.