Strasbourg, 4 May 2005

Dear Mr X.,

On 28 June 2004, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman in which you alleged that the European Parliament had failed to reply to an e-mail you had sent it on 23 February 2004.

On 15 July 2004, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Parliament. In this letter, I asked Parliament to submit its opinion by 15 September 2004.

On 21 September 2004, the Citizens' Correspondence Unit of the European Parliament sent me a copy of a letter it had addressed to you that day.

On 12 October 2004, I wrote to Parliament in order to ask for its opinion.

The European Parliament sent its opinion on 8 November 2004. I forwarded it to you on 12 November 2004 with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 7 December 2004.

On 15 December 2004, I asked Parliament for further information in relation to this case. The European Parliament sent its reply on 1 February 2005 and I forwarded it to you on 4 February 2005 with an invitation to make observations by 15 March 2005. No observations were received from you by that date.

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

THE COMPLAINT

On 23 February 2004, the complainant, an Austrian citizen, sent an e-mail to the European Parliament, using the civis@europarl.eu.int address. In this e-mail, he asked for information concerning a resolution that Parliament appeared to have adopted in 1995. In the absence of a reply, he sent his request for information again on 13 April 2004.

In his complaint to the Ombudsman lodged in June 2004, the complainant alleged that the European Parliament had failed to reply to his e-mail of 23 February 2004 and claimed that a reply should be sent.

THE INQUIRY

The European Parliament's opinion

In its opinion, Parliament made the following comments:

The complainant's request for information had been addressed to the civis@europarl.eu.int electronic mailbox. However, this mailbox was no longer set up to receive messages from members of the public but had been replaced by an internet form created for this purpose on the "Europarl Portal".

When the complainant had sent his message, he would have received a message inviting him to contact the Citizens' Correspondence Unit of Parliament by way of the "Citizens' Portal".

"Dear correspondent,

Thank you for your e-mail message.

To enable us to deal with your message, we would kindly ask you to readdress it to us using the form given at the 'Citizens' Portal' on the EP web site at

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?id=48&language=en.

To submit your question, suggestion or request for information, select 'Correspondence with the citizen' and click on 'mailbox'. Complete the form and select 'submit'.

N.B. You can transfer the text of your message to the form using the copy and paste procedure."

It appeared that the complainant did not use the form. If he had done so, he would have received a timely reply.

Together with its opinion, Parliament submitted a copy of the reply that had been sent to the complainant on 21 September 2004.

The complainant's observations

In his observations, the complainant pointed out that although the letter of 21 September 2004 explained that the civis@europarl.eu.int address was no longer valid, the very same address was indicated in the footer of the letter. The complainant further stressed that he had not received the standard message to which Parliament had referred, either in reply to his e-mail of 23 February 2004 or when he had sent his reminder on 13 April 2004.

Further inquiries

After careful consideration of the European Parliament's opinion and the complainant's observations, it appeared that further inquiries were necessary.

Request for further information

On 15 December 2004, the Ombudsman therefore asked Parliament to explain why the civis@europarl.eu.int address was still quoted in the footer of its letter addressed to the complainant on 21 September 2004. The Ombudsman further noted that when his services had sent test messages to this mailbox in November 2004 (after having received Parliament's opinion) and December 2004 (after having received the complainant's observations), they had not received the standard message to which Parliament had referred. Parliament was invited to comment on this fact.

Parliament's reply

In its reply, the European Parliament made the following comments:

Since summer 2003, a portal has been created on Europarl for citizens making contact with the European Parliament. The citizens fill in an electronic form which is sent to the Adonis/Geda database. In all cases, the Citizens' Correspondence Unit replies to the form by e-mail through the civis@europarl.eu.int mailbox. Citizens contacting the Parliament by normal post also used to receive in reply a letter which included the address of the civis@europarl.eu.int mailbox. The Unit concerned, recognising the confusion which could result from the mention of this address, had since adopted a new letter-head which indicates the address of the "Citizens' Portal" on Parliament's website (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?id=48&language=de in the German version).

At the time when the complainant sent his e-mails to Parliament, Parliament's electronic mail system had had serious problems due to an uncontrolled avalanche of spam messages. Thus, the arrival in the civis@europarl.eu.int mailbox of more than 300 000 e-mails had had the effect, among others, of paralysing the programmed instructions in the e-mail management programme which activated the automatic "reply" function.

This situation had been dealt with on 26 April 2004 when a new electronic mail programme had become operational. The systematic sending of a "reply" to e-mails was now working perfectly.

The automatic "reply" only functioned with e-mails received from the outside world, i.e. from outside the European institutions. This was the reason why the Ombudsman's services had not received an automatic reply to the e-mails they had sent to the civis@europarl.eu.int mailbox in November and December 2004.

The complainant's observations

No observations were received from the complainant.

THE DECISION

1 Alleged failure to reply to request for information

1.1 On 23 February 2004, the complainant, an Austrian citizen, sent an e-mail requesting information to the European Parliament, using the civis@europarl.eu.int address. In the absence of a reply, he sent his request for information again on 13 April 2004. In his complaint to the Ombudsman lodged in June 2004, the complainant alleged that the European Parliament had failed to reply to his e-mail of 23 February 2004 and claimed that a reply should be sent.

1.2 In its opinion, Parliament explained that the civis@europarl.eu.int electronic mailbox was no longer set up to receive messages from members of the public but had been replaced by an internet form created for this purpose. According to Parliament, persons writing to the civis@europarl.eu.int address receive an automatic message informing them that they should use the new form. Parliament submitted that the complainant had not used the form and that he would have received a timely reply if he had done so. Together with its opinion, Parliament submitted a copy of the letter that had been sent to the complainant on 21 September 2004.

1.3 In his observations, the complainant stressed that he had not received the standard message to which Parliament had referred, either in reply to his e-mail of 23 February 2004 or when he had sent his reminder on 13 April 2004.

1.4 The Ombudsman's services sent test messages to the civis@europarl.eu.int mailbox in November 2004 (after having received Parliament's opinion) and December 2004 (after having received the complainant's observations) without receiving the standard message to which Parliament had referred. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman asked Parliament for further information.

1.5 In its reply, Parliament explained that at the time when the complainant sent his e-mails, its electronic mail system had had serious problems due to an uncontrolled avalanche of spam messages. According to Parliament, the arrival in the civis@europarl.eu.int mailbox of more than 300 000 e-mails had had the effect, among others, of paralysing the programmed instructions in the e-mail management programme which activated the automatic "reply" function. Parliament added that this situation had been dealt with on 26 April 2004 when a new electronic mail programme had become operational. It stressed that the systematic sending of a "reply" to e-mails was now working perfectly. Parliament also explained that the automatic "reply" only functioned with e-mails received from the outside world, i.e. from outside the European institutions. This was the reason why the Ombudsman's services had not received an automatic reply to the e-mails they had sent to the civis@europarl.eu.int mailbox in November and December 2004.

1.6 It is good administrative practice to reply to requests for information within a reasonable period of time. In the present case, Parliament only replied to the complainant's e-mail of 23 February 2004 on 21 September 2004, that is to say nearly seven months after having received the request and more than two months after the Ombudsman had informed Parliament of the complainant's case. The Ombudsman considers that this goes manifestly beyond what can be considered to be a reasonable period of time for answering such requests.

1.7 In its reply to the Ombudsman's request for further information, Parliament referred to technical problems that beset its electronic mail system due to an uncontrolled avalanche of spam messages. The Ombudsman agrees that technical problems of such a nature may cause delays and that the EU institution or body concerned cannot be held responsible for such delays, provided that it is unable promptly to deal with these problems. It should be noted, however, that according to the information provided by Parliament the said problems must have existed for more than two months, that is to say at least from the day when the complainant first wrote to Parliament (on 23 February 2004) until the day on which a new electronic mail programme had become operational (on 26 April 2004). It should further be noted that even after the problem had been solved according to the information provided by Parliament, it took nearly five months (and a complaint to the Ombudsman) before the complainant's request for information was answered. The Ombudsman considers that even if only this period of time were to be taken into consideration, Parliament would still clearly have failed to reply to the complainant within a reasonable period of time.

1.8 The Ombudsman considers, however, that the technical problems to which Parliament has referred should in any event not be taken into account in the present case. Where such technical problems cause delays, it is good administrative practice to inform the citizen accordingly. In the present case, however, no such information was given either in Parliament's reply to the complainant of 21 September 2004 or in Parliament's opinion on the present complaint which was submitted in November 2004. On the contrary, in its opinion Parliament claimed that the complainant must have received, in reply to his e-mails, a standard message directing him to the proper e-mail address. It was only in its reply to the Ombudsman's request for further information that Parliament admitted that no such messages had been sent out during the period concerned. The Ombudsman further notes that Parliament has not offered any apologies in this context.

1.9 In view of the above, the Ombudsman concludes that Parliament's failure to reply to the complainant's e-mail of 23 February 2004 within a reasonable period of time constitutes an instance of maladministration. A critical remark will be made in this context.

2 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, it is necessary to make the following critical remark:

It is good administrative practice to reply to requests for information within a reasonable period of time. In the present case, Parliament only replied to the complainant's e-mail of 23 February 2004 on 21 September 2004, that is to say nearly seven months after having received the request and more than two months after the Ombudsman had informed Parliament of the complainant's case. The Ombudsman considers that this goes manifestly beyond what can be considered to be a reasonable period of time for answering such requests. Parliament's failure to reply to the complainant's e-mail of 23 February 2004 within a reasonable period of time thus constitutes an instance of maladministration.

Given that this aspect of the case concerns procedures relating to specific events in the past, it is not appropriate to pursue a friendly settlement of the matter. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The President of the European Parliament will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS