# Decision of the European Ombudsman on complaint 500/2001/IJH against the European Commission
- Autor: Defensor del Pueblo Europeo
- Fecha: 2002-02-11T00:00+01:00[Europe/Paris]
- [URL](https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/es/decision/es/1559)
---
Strasbourg, 11 February 2002

Dear Mr P.,

On 27 March 2001, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against
the European Commission, concerning information which the Commission had
supplied to the Ombudsman during his investigation of complaint 1372/98/OV.
On 18 April 2001, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European
Commission.

On 8 May 2001, I informed you that the Ombudsman had received a similar
complaint from Mr R. (552/2001/IJH) and that the two complaints
would be investigated jointly.

Also on 8 May 2001, I forwarded your complaint 500/2001/IJH to the President
of the European Commission. By letter dated 3 May 2001, received on 10
May 2001, Mr R. sent further information to the Ombudsman concerning
complaint 552/2001/IJH. The further information included an additional
allegation against the Commission. On 23 May 2001, the Commission sent
its opinion on complaint 500/2001/IJH. On 6 June 2001, I wrote to the
Commission to request that its opinion on complaint 552/2001/IJH should
also comment on the additional allegation made by Mr R. in his letter
dated 3 May 2001. On 13 May 2001, I wrote to inform you of the action
I had taken and enclosed a copy of the Commission's opinion on complaint
500/2001/IJH.

On 31 July 2001, the Commission sent its opinion on complaint 552/2001/IJH.
On 4 September 2001, I forwarded the Commission's opinion on complaint
552/2001/IJH to you and invited you submit observations on that opinion
and on the Commission's opinion on your complaint 500/2001/IJH. No observations
appear to have been received from you.

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

Please note that the present decision deals only with the allegation
made in your complaint 500/2001/IJH. Please also find enclosed, for your
information, a copy of the Ombudsman's decision on complaint 552/2001/IJH,
which also deals with the additional allegations made by Mr R..

THE COMPLAINT
-------------

*The previous complaint 1372/98/OV*   

In December 1998, complaint 1372/98/OV was submitted to the European
Ombudsman on behalf of the Isle of Wight Council, concerning the decision
of Eurostat not to classify the Isle of Wight as a separate Level 2 area
in the NUTS system of statistical classification[(1)](#(1)){#Footnote1}.
This is of concern to the complainant because only areas identified at
the NUTS 2 level can be eligible for Objective 1 funding from the EU Structural
Funds.

On 13 March 2000, the Ombudsman made a draft recommendation to the Commission
in case 1372/98/OV that it should reconsider the matter of the NUTS classification
of the Isle of Wight. On 22 March 2001, the Ombudsman closed case 1372/98/OV
on the basis that the Commission had duly executed the draft recommendation,
even though the Commission had confirmed its decision to classify the
Isle of Wight only at NUTS level 3, not at level 2.
**The allegation in complaint 500/2001/IJH**   

The complainant alleged that, in dealing with the previous complaint
(1372/98/OV) concerning the NUTS level classification of the Isle of Wight,
the Commission supplied incorrect information to the Ombudsman. According
to the complainant, the Commission informed the Ombudsman that all the
islands classified at NUTS level 2 have a higher population density than
the Isle of Wight, with the exception of the Åland islands. The
complainant stated that, according to his information, the Isle of Wight
has a population density of 329 people per square kilometre and that this
density is higher than that of four other islands, in addition to the
Åland islands, which are classified at NUTS level 2.

THE INQUIRY
-----------

**The Commission's opinion**   

In its opinion, the Commission stated that the relevant part of the Commission's
opinion to the Ombudsman in case 1372/98/OV was in French[(2)](#(2)){#Footnote2}.
The correct translation of the relevant part of the Commission's opinion
is as follows:
*"Classifying the Isle of Wight at NUTS level II would put this
region at the same level as Crete, Corsica, Guadeloupe, Martinique,
Réunion, Sicily, Sardinia and Ǻland, the only islands in
this class in their own right, all of which have a much larger population
(with the exception of Ǻland) and much larger area"*

In accordance with normal procedure, the Commission later sent a translation
into the language of the complaint, English. Unfortunately, the above
sentence was inaccurately translated, with the French expression "beaucoup
plus peuplées" being rendered as "far denser population"
rather than the correct "much larger population".
**The complainant's observations**   

The complainant in case 500/2001/IJH did not make any observations on
the Commission's opinion.

The complainant in case 552/2001/IJH did not make any observations relevant
to the allegation that the Commission supplied wrong information concerning
density of population.

THE DECISION
------------

**1 The allegation that the Commission supplied wrong information
concerning density of population.**   

1.1 The complainant alleged that, in dealing with a previous complaint
concerning the NUTS level classification of the Isle of Wight, the Commission
supplied incorrect information to the Ombudsman. According to the complainant,
the Commission informed the Ombudsman that all the islands classified
at NUTS level 2 have a higher population density than the Isle of Wight,
with the exception of the Åland islands. The complainant stated
that, according to his information, the Isle of Wight has a population
density of 329 people per square kilometre and that this density is higher
than that of four other islands, in addition to the Åland islands,
which are classified at NUTS level 2.

1.2 The Commission explained that its opinion to the Ombudsman in
the previous complaint was in French and that the translation into English
which it later sent to the Ombudsman contained an error, in that the French
expression "beaucoup plus peuplées" was rendered as "far
denser population" rather than the correct "much larger population".

1.3 The Ombudsman considers that the Commission is responsible for
the translations which it supplies to the Ombudsman and notes that the
language of this complaint is English. The complainant was therefore correct
to point out the error in the information supplied in English by the Commission.
However, the evidence available to the Ombudsman is that the Commission
formulated its reply to the Ombudsman on the basis of the correct information
and that it intended to communicate the correct information to the complainant.
In these circumstances, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration.
**2 Conclusion**   

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there
appears to have been no maladministration by the Commission. The Ombudsman
therefore closes the case.

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

Yours sincerely,

Jacob SÖDERMAN

*** ** * ** ***

[(1)](#Footnote1){#(1)} This system divides each Member
State into a number of NUTS 1 regions, each of which is subdivided into
NUTS 2 regions and so on. NUTS is the acronym of Nomenclature des Unités
Territoriales Statistiques.

[(2)](#Footnote2){#(2)} "Or classer l'Ile de Wight au
niveau II de la NUTS mettrait cette région au même niveau que la Crète,
la Corse, la Guadeloupe, La Martinique, la Réunion, la Sicile, la Sardaigne
et Åland, seules îles individuellement dans ce cas, et qui sont toutes
beaucoup plus peuplées (à l'exception d'Åland) et beaucoup plus grandes".