Dear Mrs B.,
On 7 September 1997, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the way in which the Commission had dealt with complaints concerning the German legislation on package and packaging waste. The Ombudsman also received a similar complaint from another complainant (819/97/IJH). In order to deal with the complaints as effectively and as promptly as possible, the inquiries were carried out jointly.
On 18 October 1997, I forwarded the complaints to the President of the Commission. On 10 February 1998, the Commission sent me its opinion. I forwarded the Commission's opinion to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 20 March 1998. On 9 September 1998, I wrote asking the Commission to respond to points raised in the observations. On 9 November 1998, the Commission sent me its reply and on 19 November 1998 my services contacted you by telephone concerning the Commission's reply.
I am writing now to let you know the result of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

The complaints to the Ombudsman concerned the way in which the Commission had dealt with complaints about the German legislation on package and packaging waste of 1991 (Verordnung über die Vermeidung von Verpackungsabfällen), which were addressed to the Commission in 1991 and 1992. The complaints to the Ombudsman claimed that although the Commission had given the complaints a reference number, it had not subsequently supplied any further information to the complainants and that this behaviour was unacceptable.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion
In summary, the Commission's opinion was as follows. The German legislation on package and packaging waste had been the subject of 47 complaints which the Commission registered and treated together under infringement procedure 91/4489, with a view to examining a possible breach of Article 30 of the Treaty. After 1996 the procedure took a new turn, since the issue was now subject to Directive 94/62/EC on package and packaging waste. Given this new circumstance, the Commission decided to transfer the matter, together with the complaints, to the responsible Service, DG XI. The Commission is, at present, examining the German legislation in the light of this new legal framework to see whether there is an infringement of the Directive or of the Treaty, in particular Article 30.
The Commission further stated that, in general, it has the following obligations towards complainants:
(i) To send an acknowledgement of receipt.
(ii) To inform the complainant of the action taken to deal with the complaint, including representations made to national authorities or Community bodies.
(iii) To inform the complainant of any infringement procedure it undertakes against a Member State, or of any legal action it intends to take against an undertaking, as a result of the complaint.
As regards the case in question, the Commission stated that it had acknowledged receipt of the complaints. In July 1994, the Commission decided to send a letter of formal notice to the German authorities. In October 1994, the Commission contacted the complainants who seemed most concerned in order to seek their views. On 12 December 1995 it sent the letter of formal notice. The Commission did not find it necessary to inform every one of the 47 complainants of this action, especially because of the considerable publicity given to the issue. The Commission did, however, inform every interested person on request. It also organised a meeting in June 1997, as well as further meetings for specific sectors.
The Commission finally stated that it will inform the complainants of any further decision that it will take on the issue.
The complainant's observations
In their observations, the complainants were satisfied with the explanations given by the Commission, except for one point. Both complainants pointed out that the Commission had failed to mention its commitment to inform complainants of its intention to close a case, thereby giving them the chance to put forward views and criticisms concerning the Commission's point of view before the Commission commits itself to a final conclusion.

FURTHER INQUIRIES

The Ombudsman invited the Commission to respond to the issue raised in the complainant's observations. In its reply, the Commission first stated that it at no time had the intention to close the case. It also informed the Ombudsman that the infringement procedure was still running and that it had sent a further letter to the German authorities in August 1998.
The Commission also stated:

"It follows from the said decision of the Commission that there was no need to inform in advance the complainants. However, and independently from this case, the Commission takes the opportunity to reiterate its commitment to inform the complainant in due time before it might decide to close a complaint file.

The complainants are being informed of the aforesaid decision. The Commission also confirms its commitment that the complainants will be informed of any further decision the Commission will take on the issue, following the rules of procedure as indicated to the complainants in the acknowledgement of their complaints."

In telephone discussion with the Ombudsman's services, the complainants stated that they were satisfied with the Commission's reply.

THE DECISION

1 The complaints to the Ombudsman refer to the Commission's handling of complaints made to it in 1991 and 1992 concerning the German legislation on package and packaging waste.
2 In April 1997, the Ombudsman began an own initiative inquiry into the possibilities for improving the quality of the Commission's administrative procedures for dealing with complaints concerning infringements of Community law by Member States (1). During the own-initiative inquiry, the Commission indicated that it had adopted an internal rule of procedure that a decision either to close a file without taking any action, or to initiate official infringement proceedings, must be taken on every complaint within a maximum period of one year from the date on which it was registered, except in special cases, the reasons for which must be stated.
3 Furthermore, the Commission undertook that, apart from cases where a complaint is obviously without foundation and cases where nothing further is heard from the complainant, the Commission will ensure that a complainant is informed of its intention to close a case. It appears, therefore, that in cases in which the Commission finds that there is no infringement of Community law, complainants should have the possibility to put forward views and criticisms concerning the Commission's point of view before the Commission commits itself to a final conclusion that there is no infringement.
4 The complainants alleged that the Commission had not informed them, over a long period of time, of any steps taken in respect to the complaints addressed to the Commission. In its opinion, the Commission explained its dealings with the case.
5 In their observations, the complainants indicated they were satisfied with the Commission's response except for the fact that the Commission had not mentioned the commitment referred to in paragraph 2 above.
6 In reply to further inquires, the Commission reiterated the commitment referred to in paragraph 2 above. The complainants have informed the Ombudsman that they are satisfied with this reply.
Conclusion
It appears from the Commission´s comments and the complainants's observations that the Commission has taken steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied the complainant. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
The President of the European Commission will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely
Jacob Söderman

---

(1) 303/97/PD, reported in the European Ombudsman's Annual Report for 1997 pp 270-274 and see the Commission's 15th Annual Report on Monitoring the Application of Community Law (1997), Introduction pp III-IV (COM (1998) 317 final).