The case concerned the Commission's decision to close its file on an infringement complaint against Finland in which it was alleged that Finland discriminated against men in voluntary additional pension schemes. The complainants contended that the Commission's position was not consistent, as it had brought two similar infringement cases against Italy and Greece before the Court of Justice, whereas it did not do so in the case of Finland. In their view, the Commission also failed to provide adequate reasons for its position that it was not clear whether the Court of Justice would have concluded that the relevant Finnish law breaches EU law.

The Ombudsman inquired into the matter and found that, in the course of the inquiry, the Commission gave adequate reasons for its position, thus exercising the discretion it enjoys when dealing with infringement complaints. She therefore concluded that there were no grounds for further inquiries into the matter and closed the case.

The complainant is an Italian citizen residing in Germany. He argued that his wife had been a victim in Germany of discrimination in employment on the grounds of age and nationality, because a company she had applied to for a job did not hire her. Following the unsuccessful outcome of court proceedings, the complainant submitted an infringement complaint to the European Commission, alleging that the German authorities failed properly to transpose into the national legal order an EU Directive on equal treatment in employment and occupation.

The complainant subsequently turned to the European Ombudsman and alleged that the Commission failed (i) to register his infringement complaint, (ii) to deal with it accordingly, and (iii) to provide convincing reasons to justify why it did not intervene in his case.

In its opinion, the Commission explained that it had registered the complainant's infringement complaint a few days after having received it. It regretted not having given the complainant prior notice of its intention to close his infringement complaint and that it did not inform him of the closure of the case. The Commission moreover explained that Germany had transposed the aforesaid Directive in an appropriate and timely manner and provided specific reasons as to why there was no need to open an infringement procedure on the basis of the complainant's submissions.

Given that the Commission had in fact registered the infringement complaint, the Ombudsman found no maladministration in this regard. Concerning the substance of the case, no further inquiries were justified, because the Commission gave specific and convincing reasons in support of its position in the course of the inquiry. The Ombudsman noted that the Commission acknowledged that it neither gave the complainant prior notice of its intention to close his infringement complaint nor informed him of the closure of the case. In addition, it did not apologise for this omission. He therefore made a critical remark.

The complainant is an Italian citizen who, in 2009, submitted a complaint to the European Commission concerning the alleged infringement by Italy of Directive 83/391/CEE on workers' safety. In September 2011, the Commission decided to send a letter of formal notice to Italy. When the complainant subsequently requested access to that letter on the basis of Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, the Commission refused access. Following submission of a confirmatory application for access, the Commission informed the complainant that his application was being assessed but that it still did not have all the elements it needed to make a final assessment. The Commission therefore stated that, in conformity with Regulation 1049/2001, it had extended the deadline for deciding on the complainant's confirmatory application by 15 working days.

In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Commission unlawfully extended the deadline for deciding on his confirmatory application for access. On 30 January 2012, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complainant's allegation and asked the Commission to submit an opinion by 31 March 2012. The Commission subsequently requested an extension of the deadline for submitting its opinion until 30 April 2012, which the Ombudsman granted. At the same time, he informed the Commission that he reserved the right to proceed on the basis of the information already provided to him in case the Commission did not comply with the new deadline. At the time when the Ombudsman's decision was adopted in June 2012, the Commission's opinion had still not been received.

The Ombudsman took the view that the information that had already been made available to him was sufficient to deal with the present complaint, which concerned only the extension of the deadline to reply to the confirmatory application and not the eventual decision refusing access. He therefore concluded that there was no need for further inquiry measures, or to wait any longer for the Commission's opinion.

As regards the substance of the case, the Ombudsman observed that Regulation 1049/2001 provides for binding deadlines, and that exceptions are only possible in exceptional cases and where detailed reasons have been given to the applicant. In the present case, the Commission limited itself to stating that it still did not have in its possession all the elements it needed to make a final assessment. In the Ombudsman's view, this statement was manifestly insufficient to establish that the Commission was confronted with an exceptional case that could have justified an extension of time. The simple reference made by the Commission to the need for more time to collect information therefore falls short of the requirements set out in Regulation 1049/2001, and in particular of the requirement to give detailed reasons. The Ombudsman therefore concluded that the Commission unlawfully extended the deadline for deciding on the complainant's confirmatory application and that its action constituted an instance of maladministration. Accordingly, he closed the case with a critical remark.