- Izvoz
- Pretplatite se na predmet
- Primajte poruke e-pošte o ažuriranju predmeta
- Primajte RSS obavijesti o ažuriranju predmeta
- EN English
Decision on how the European Commission handled an infringement complaint concerning the implementation of the Animal Breeding Regulation in Ireland (CHAP(2022)00801) (case 480/2023/PGP)
Odluka
Slučaj 480/2023/PGP - Otvoren Ponedjeljak | 03 travnja 2023 - Odluka donesena Ponedjeljak | 03 travnja 2023 - Predmetna institucija Europska komisija ( Nije utvrđen nepravilan rad uprave ) - Država Irska
Podnesena pritužba
12/03/2023Analiza pritužbe
13/03/2023Istraga u tijeku
03/04/2023Ishod istrage
03/04/2023
Dear Mr X,
You recently submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman about how the European Commission handled your infringement complaint.
In your infringement complaint to the Commission, you contended that Ireland has failed to correctly implement Regulation 2016/1012[1] (the Animal Breeding Regulation), in particular concerning the issuing of zootechnical certificates and related controls by the relevant authorities.
In your complaint to the Ombudsman, you argue that the Commission was wrong not to take any action in relation to your complaint.
After careful analysis of all the information you provided with your complaint, we have decided to close the inquiry with the following conclusion:
There was no maladministration by the European Commission.
The Commission enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether and when to commence an infringement procedure.[2] Its policy on infringements of EU law is set out in its Communication ’EU law: Better results through better application’.[3] The role of the Ombudsman in cases such as these is to verify whether there has been any manifest error of assessment and whether the Commission has provided clear and reasonable explanations.
Based on the information provided in your complaint, there is no evidence that there was any manifest error of assessment by the Commission. The Commission also provided clear information on why it considers that your case does not indicate a breach of EU law, and its reply is reasonable. Please note that the Commission is not obliged to engage with a complainant on every issue or argument raised in an infringement complaint. It is sufficient that the Commission explains clearly why it has taken the position it has taken, which it has done in this case.
I am aware that you may find this decision disappointing, but I hope that you will find these explanations useful. Thank you for having contacted the European Ombudsman.
Yours sincerely,
Tina Nilsson
Head of the Case-handling Unit
Strasbourg, 03/04/2023
[1] Regulation 2016/1012 on zootechnical and genealogical conditions for the breeding, trade in and entry into the Union
of purebred breeding animals, hybrid breeding pigs and the germinal products t hereof (‘Animal Breeding Regulation’):
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016R1012&qid=1678453339585
[2] Judgment of the Court of 14 February 1989, Starfruit v Commission, case 247/87, available at: https://eurlex.
europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61987CJ0247.
[3] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal -content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017XC0119(01)&from=EN
- Izvoz
- Pretplatite se na predmet
- Primajte poruke e-pošte o ažuriranju predmeta
- Primajte RSS obavijesti o ažuriranju predmeta