Strasbourg, 23 February 2007

Dear Mr X,

On 6 November 2005, you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the European Commission's handling of a complaint against alleged infringements of Community law by German authorities relating to the extension of the Frankfurt/Main airport.

On 4 December 2005, you sent materials to support your complaint.

On 19 December 2005, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 22 March 2006. I forwarded it to you on the same day with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 6 April 2006.

By letter of 30 May 2006, you submitted further information in relation to your complaint.

On 6 June 2006, I sent a request for a supplementary opinion to the Commission concerning an additional allegation you had made in your observations and in your further letter. I informed you accordingly on the same day.

On 20 June 2006, you sent me further information in relation to your case. However, since this information did not appear directly to concern the Commission's handling of your infringement complaint, but rather the German authorities' responsibility in the matter, I decided not to forward it to the Commission. I informed you accordingly by letter of 10 July 2006.

On 17 August 2006, the Commission sent its supplementary opinion. I forwarded it to you on 23 August 2006 with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished, by 30 September 2006. 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.

To avoid misunderstanding, it is important to recall that the EC Treaty empowers the Ombudsman to inquire into possible instances of maladministration only in the activities of Community institutions and bodies. The Statute of the Ombudsman specifically provides that no action by any other authority or person may be the subject of a complaint to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman's inquiries into your complaint have therefore been directed towards examining whether there has been maladministration in the activities of the Commission.

THE COMPLAINT

On 5 January 2003, the complainant, a German citizen, submitted a complaint to the European Commission concerning the alleged failure of the German authorities to observe EU environmental protection rules in the extension of the Frankfurt/Main airport. This extension comprises the construction of a new runway and a number of infrastructure projects linked to the airport. Among other things, the complainant alleged that environmental impact assessments in relation to the planned projects had not been carried out properly, that certain sites had wrongly not been designated for inclusion in the EU's "Natura 2000" programme and that bird protection areas had not been designated and treated properly.

On 17 January 2003, the Commission's Secretariat-General informed the complainant that it had received his letter and that it had forwarded it to the Directorate-General for Environment ("DG Environment").

On 9 May 2003, the complainant requested information on the handling of his case as well as the details of a contact person in the Commission.

On 3 July 2003, DG Environment informed the complainant that it had received his letter of 9 May 2003 on 25 June 2003. It stated that his complaint had been registered with a number of other complaints concerning the extension of the Frankfurt/Main airport under the reference 2002/5367. In accordance with the Commission's common practice in the handling of complaints concerning the same grievance, the individual acknowledgement of receipt had been replaced by a publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities and on the Internet. The Commission enclosed a copy of the relevant excerpt of the Official Journal. It stated that it was examining the complaint and that information on the results as well as on the further procedure in relation to the case would be given in the same form as the acknowledgement of receipt.

On 28 February 2004, the complainant submitted additional information to the Commission. He asked for a more expeditious handling of his case.

On 4 April 2004, the Commission informed the complainant that it had decided to handle his complaint in connection with case 2002/5175, which concerned the same subject-matter as his complaint.

On 19 February and on 6 and 13 September 2005, the complainant submitted further information to the Commission. In his letter of 13 September 2005, he also suggested that the Commission should send an observer to a public hearing concerning the extension of the airport.

By letter of 23 September 2005, the Commission informed the complainant that it would take the additional information into account and would inform him about the results of its examination and of any further steps it would take.

On 1 October 2005, the complainant replied that he considered the information the Commission had provided him with to be "too thin", particularly in view of the length of time it had already taken to handle the matter. He asked to know what was being done concretely, what the Commission's next steps were and when they would be taken.

By letter of 5 October 2005, the Commission informed the complainant that it had "taken note of his opinion"(1).

In his complaint to the European Ombudsman, the complainant complained that he had received only "meaningless standard replies" from the Commission, despite having made several requests for information. He emphasised that a substantive reply from the Commission was urgently needed because large forest areas, which were protected under the "Natura 2000" programme, had already been cleared.

The complainant alleged that the Commission had failed properly to reply to his letters concerning his complaint, in particular to his letter of 1 October 2005.

He claimed that the Commission should inform him about further proceedings in this case and that it should take rapid action as regards the substance of the case.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion, the Commission explained that the complainant's submissions touched upon two complaints the Commission was handling, namely, case 2002/5175 and case 2004/4947.

Case 2002/5175 concerned the planned new runway at the Frankfurt/Main airport. Environmental impact assessments for three alternatives carried out by the German authorities had shown that all three alternatives might have significant negative effects on the surrounding "Natura 2000" sites. According to the information received from the German authorities, a final choice for the runway had not yet been made. The development consent procedure was pending and should be completed by 2007. The complainants in this case feared that the project would have significant negative effects on the "Natura 2000" sites. They also criticised the insufficient designation of areas to be protected under Community law.

Complaint case 2004/4947 concerned the construction of an aircraft maintenance hangar for the Airbus A 380 outside the present limits of the airport within a "proposed site of Community interest" ("pSCI") and near a "Special Protection Area" ("SPA"), as defined under Community law. According to impact assessments carried out by the German authorities, the projects would not have significant negative effects on the SPA. By contrast, significant negative effects on the pSCI could not be excluded, but the requirements for granting an exceptional permit had been considered to be fulfilled in the impact assessment. Development consent had therefore been granted by the competent national authorities. The complainants in that case disagreed with the result of the impact assessment. Among other things, they considered that there were alternatives to the chosen location.

The Commission submitted that its services had assessed the extensive information provided by the complainants and by the German government in these two cases. Moreover, the cases had regularly been discussed with the German authorities at the environmental package meetings, most recently on 4 July 2005 in Berlin. The investigation had been completed for the majority of the issues concerned. However, it was still unclear whether or not additional pSCIs and/or SPAs had to be designated around the airport and how they might be affected by the planned runway and the A 380 hangar. This was being clarified in the framework of the horizontal infringement procedures 1995/2225 concerning pSCI designations in Germany as a whole and 2001/5117 concerning SPA designations in Germany. In case 1995/2225, the Commission had found that the designations were still insufficient. Consequently, it had sent a Reasoned Opinion to the German government. Germany had two months, from the date of the notification, to remedy the remaining designation deficits. The assessment in case 2001/5117 was about to be finalised. As a result, it appeared possible that a decision on the two cases concerning the runway and the A 380 hangar could be taken in the first half of 2006.

In relation to the complainant's allegation that the Commission had failed properly to reply to his letters, the Commission submitted that the complainant had sent additional comments on the cases in his letter of 13 September 2005. In accordance with the Commission's Code of Good Administrative Behaviour ("the Code") it had replied within 15 working days, namely, on 23 September 2005. The Commission had acknowledged receipt of the additional information and had informed the complainant that this information would be considered in the ongoing investigation. The complainant had also been assured that he would be informed about the outcome of the investigation and the further procedure. The complainant had replied to this letter by fax of 1 October 2005. Since, according to the Commission, this reply did not contain any new information of substance, a simple acknowledgement of receipt had been sent to him on 5 October 2005.

As to his claim that he should be informed about the Commission's further steps, the Commission submitted that it was not possible for it to give any more information on the substance of the cases at this stage, since their assessment was still ongoing. It stated that, in complex cases like these, its services take particular care not to give out any information that might prematurely influence national procedures or political discussions in the Member States concerned before the final assessment.

The Commission stated that, once a decision had been reached in the two complaint cases, the complainant would be informed, in accordance with the Commission's Communication on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law ("the Communication")(2).

As regards the complainant's claim that the Commission should take "rapid action" on the substance of the case, the Commission, first, emphasised that it could not take any "rapid action", in the sense of "direct action" vis-à-vis a Member State, because it did not have the power to prevent Member State authorities from undertaking a certain project. It could only decide to launch infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, if and when it considered that the Member State concerned was in breach of Community law.

Second, the Commission stated that it was not possible to take rapid decisions in cases as complex as the ones at hand, involving various planning stages and entailing an enormous amount of documents to assess, problems to consider and arguments to study. By way of example, the Commission explained that the documents introduced in the development consent procedure in case 2002/5175 were compiled in 60 "Leitz" folders containing a total of 17 500 pages. These documents needed to be studied carefully before a decision could be taken. Otherwise, the decision would run the risk of being less qualified or even flawed, which could not be in the complainant's interest. The Commission's services had made every effort to complete their assessment of the extensive documentation in the cases at hand in the shortest possible time.

Third, the Commission explained that a decision on the substance of the cases could not be taken before the assessments in the German horizontal designation cases had been completed. The German "Natura 2000" designation process had been going on for many years, even though the Commission had made all possible efforts to support and accelerate this process. However, since the assessment in case 2001/5117 was about to be completed, a decision on the cases at hand could in principle be taken within the next few months.

In summary, the Commission considered that its services had replied to the complainant in full respect of its Code and its Communication.

The complainant's observations

In his observations and in a further letter to the Ombudsman, the complainant made it clear that he was not satisfied with the Commission's position. Essentially, he complained that the Commission had failed properly to handle the substance of his case. In particular, the complainant made the following points:

(i) The Commission had failed to send an observer to the hearing on the planning approval procedure concerning the extension of the airport. The complainant considered that, by sending an observer, the Commission could have obtained first-hand information that was not being filtered through several layers of bureaucracy. The 60 folders to which the Commission had referred only contained, in fact, faulty planning documents and studies to support the views of the parties involved.

(ii) The fact that the Commission waited for the German authorities to designate new "Natura 2000" sites before deciding on the two complaints at issue created a legal void, which made the continuing destruction of sensitive areas possible.

(iii) The Commission failed to take into account new developments when handling the complaints. Thus, the Commission appeared to have failed to notice that only one alternative for the extension of the airport was now advancing in the planning process and that, in the context of its advancement, inhabitants of the area were facing threats of expropriation. Furthermore, the Commission had apparently not noticed that a large forest area had recently been cleared, which, according to new information from the operating companies, was not even necessary because only half of this area would actually be used at this point.

(iv) The Commission had issued contradictory information: on the one hand, it had stated in its opinion that it was still examining the two complaints. On the other hand, according to a newspaper article of 6 April 2006, a Commission spokeswoman had said that the Commission had found that there was no infringement of the "Natura 2000" rules as regards the A 380 hangar.

Further inquiries

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

The Ombudsman's request for a supplementary opinion

The Ombudsman asked the Commission for a supplementary opinion on the complainant's new allegation that it had failed properly to handle the substance of his complaint. He drew its attention to the above four aspects of this allegation.

The Commission's reply

In its supplementary opinion, the Commission provided an update on the complaint procedures. It stated that it had in the meantime completed its assessment of cases 2002/5175 and 2004/4947. The Commission explained that, as it did not consider that there had been a breach of Community law, it closed both cases on 4 April 2006.

With regard to both cases, the Commission had concluded that, in the area around the airport, no further sites had to be designated as SPAs or as pSCIs. Moreover, the Commission could not find fault with the demarcation of the existing "Natura 2000" sites in the area.

With regard to the new runway (case 2002/5175), the Commission considered that the various impact assessments carried out by the German authorities were complete and had been undertaken in an appropriate way. Furthermore, the Commission did not find fault with the assessment that any runway alternative would have significant negative effects on surrounding "Natura 2000" sites, but that, from an environmental point of view, the chosen northwest runway was preferable to the other alternatives. Finally, the Commission considered that there was an overriding public interest in granting permission for the project, and that the suggested compensation measures were sufficient and adequate.

With regard to the A 380 hangar (case 2004/4947), the Commission did not find fault with the impact assessment carried out, which had found no significant negative effects on an SPA but possible significant effects on an pSCI. However, the Commission considered that the permit could be granted in accordance with Community law because, in view of the absence of alternative options, an overriding public interest had been identified and adequate and sufficient compensation measures were prescribed in the permit.

The Commission furthermore reported that, following the closure of the two cases, it had received additional information regarding possible further designation needs for SPAs around the airport. Its services had carefully considered this information, but had not found any further designation deficits in the area.

As a result, the Commission also intended to close the complainant's case (case 2002/5367) as well as various other related complaint cases regarding the airport extension. The complainant had been informed about this intention by letter of 26 June 2006 and had been given a deadline of four weeks to provide additional arguments indicating a breach of Community law. The complainant had been assured that, upon provision of any new information indicating such a breach, the Commission services would continue their investigation.

As regards the specific aspects of the complainant's new allegation, the Commission made the following comments:

(i) Alleged failure to send an observer to a hearing

The Commission stated that it was not its practice to send its officials as observers to national planning or permit procedures and that there was no legal basis for such action in the environmental acquis communautaire. Moreover, according to the principle of subsidiarity, it was in the first place for the Member State authorities to ensure implementation and enforcement of Community environmental law. The Commission, in its role as guardian of the Treaty, monitored this process and investigated possible shortcomings through its complaints and infringement procedures. It did not, however, regard it as its role directly to monitor national planning and permit procedures. The Commission assured the complainant that, with an eye to properly carrying out its investigations, its services would obtain the necessary information both from the complainants in the respective cases and from the Member State authorities. The Commission stated that, as it had already explained in its opinion on the present complaint, there had been various meetings between its services and the German authorities in the cases at hand, in which inter alia the national planning and permit procedures had been discussed thoroughly. When assessing the cases at hand, the Commission services had therefore had all the relevant information at their disposal.

(ii) Alleged inactivity in the "Nature 2000" designation process

The Commission emphasised that, as it had already explained in its opinion, it had not waited for the German authorities to designate further "Natura 2000" sites. Instead, it had had to assess whether there were still designation deficits before it could ultimately decide on possible significant negative effects of the planned new runway and of the A 380 hangar on existing and potential "Natura 2000" sites. The German designation process had been very slow for a number of administrative, scientific and political reasons, which was why the Commission had launched and was still pursuing infringement procedures 1995/2225 (regarding pSCI designations) and 2001/5117 (regarding SPA designations). As a result of these procedures, Germany was gradually providing the missing designations. In turn, each of these had to be assessed by the Commission in light of the completeness of the designation network before a decision could be taken concerning the need for additional designations and the effects of the contested projects in these areas. These assessments were scientifically rather complex and therefore took some time to carry out.

(iii) Alleged failure to take new developments into account

The Commission submitted that it constantly took new developments into account when assessing the complaints regarding both additional site designations and developments in the national procedures. It regularly received and assessed additional information from both the complainants in the respective cases and the competent German authorities. As stated above, the Commission had even considered additional information after the two cases had been closed. It added that, should the complainant or any other party provide additional information indicating a breach of Community law regarding any of the cases concerned, its services would also duly consider this information.

(iv) The statement of the Commission spokeswoman

The Commission recalled that, in its opinion dated 7 March 2006, it had informed the Ombudsman that it was still assessing the two cases, but that the assessment was about to be completed. This was correct. The Commission had decided to close the two cases on 4 April 2006. Therefore, the statement of the Commission spokeswoman of 6 April 2006 was correct and not in contradiction with the Commission's opinion.

The complainant's observations

No observations were received from the complainant.

THE DECISION

1 Introductory remarks

1.1 On 5 January 2003, the complainant, a German citizen, submitted a complaint to the European Commission concerning the alleged failure of the German authorities to observe EU environmental protection rules in the extension of the Frankfurt/Main airport. The extension comprises the construction of a new runway and a number of infrastructure projects linked to the airport. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, submitted on 6 November 2005, the complainant alleged that the Commission had failed properly to reply to his letters concerning his complaint. He claimed that the Commission should inform him about further steps in the case and should take rapid action as regards the substance of the case.

1.2 In his observations on the Commission's opinion, the complainant made a new allegation, namely, that the Commission had failed properly to handle the substance of his complaint. The Ombudsman conducted further inquiries into this new allegation. He considers it useful to examine, first, this issue and the complainant's related claim that the Commission should take rapid action. The Ombudsman will then proceed to assess the merits of the complainant's allegation that the Commission failed properly to reply to his letters and his related claim that he should be informed about the Commission's further proceedings.

1.3 The Commission appears to be (or to have been) handling a number of complaints that are relevant in the context of the present case. In order to make this decision as readily intelligible as possible, it appears useful briefly to recall the matters at issue in these different complaints and to clarify the way in which the cases will be referred to in the present decision. The complainant's case (reference 2002/5367(3)) mainly concerns environmental impact assessments in relation to the projects planned in the context of the extension of the Frankfurt/Main airport and the designation and treatment of certain environmentally sensitive sites. The Commission explained that the complainant's submissions touched upon two other complaints it was handling, namely, case 2002/5175 concerning the planned new runway ("the runway case") and case 2004/4947 concerning the construction of a maintenance hangar for the Airbus A 380 ("the hangar case"). Furthermore, the Commission pointed out that, in order to be able fully to assess all of the above complaints, it had to ascertain whether further "proposed Sites of Community Importance" ("pSCI") and/or "Special Protection Areas" ("SPA") under Community law had to be designated around the airport. This was being done in the "horizontal infringement procedures" 1995/2225 concerning pSCI designations in Germany as a whole and 2001/5117 concerning SPA designations in Germany.

2 Alleged failure properly to handle the substance of the infringement complaint and related claim

2.1 In support of his allegation that the Commission failed properly to handle the substance of his case, the complainant made four points. He stated (i) that the Commission had failed to send an observer to a public hearing; (ii) that it had remained inactive in relation to the designation of sites under the EU's "Natura 2000" programme in Germany; (iii) that it had failed to take new developments into account when handling the complaints concerning the airport extension; and (iv) that a statement of a Commission spokeswoman contradicted the comments the Commission had made in its opinion to the Ombudsman.

2.2 In its supplementary opinion, the Commission commented on all of these points individually. It also explained that, in the meantime, it had closed the runway and the hangar cases because it had not found a breach of Community law in either of them. Furthermore, it also intended to close the complainant's case. The Commission stated that the complainant had been informed about its intention to do so by letter of 26 June 2006 and had been given a deadline of four weeks to provide additional arguments indicating a breach of Community law.

2.3 The Ombudsman takes the view that, in order to be able fully to assess the complainant's allegation that the Commission failed properly to handle the substance of his complaint, he would have to take into account both the results of the Commission's assessment of this case as set out in its letter of 26 June 2006, as well as the complainant's evaluation of these results. The Ombudsman notes that the Commission's proposal to close the case has been published on the Internet(4). However, he does not know whether the complainant has made use of the opportunity to provide additional arguments to the Commission or whether the Commission has in the meantime proceeded to close the case. Since, moreover, the complainant has not made any observations on the Commission's supplementary opinion, the Ombudsman concludes that he is currently not in a position to assess this aspect of the complaint. In order not to delay his decision on the remainder of the complaint, the Ombudsman has decided not to pursue this issue further in the context of the present inquiry. Should the complainant still consider that there was maladministration on the part of the Commission in this respect, he remains of course free to submit a new complaint to the Ombudsman.

2.4 Nevertheless, it might be useful to add a few considerations in relation to the individual aspects of the complainant's allegation. Concerning the complainant's view that the Commission had failed to send an observer to a public hearing, the Ombudsman is not aware of any legal rule that could prevent the Commission from sending observers to certain events in the Member States in the framework of its investigations into infringement complaints. However, he does not know of any rule that would oblige the Commission to do so, either. In the present case, the Commission has submitted that it discussed the matter at issue at various meetings with the German authorities and that it had all the relevant information at its disposal. It has also repeatedly informed the complainant that he remained free to submit new information indicating an infringement of Community law. Moreover, the complainant has not explained precisely which information the Commission failed to obtain by failing to send an observer to the hearing and why he considered that this information could not be obtained by other means.

Concerning the alleged contradiction between the Commission's opinion on the present complaint and a statement made by a Commission spokeswoman, the Commission explained that, in its opinion dated 7 March 2006, it had informed the Ombudsman that it was still assessing the runway and the hangar cases, but that the assessment was about to be completed. However, the Commission had decided to close these cases on 4 April 2006. Therefore, the statement of its spokeswoman of 6 April 2006 was correct and not in contradiction with its opinion. This explanation appears, prima facie, to be reasonable.

Regarding the Commission's alleged inactivity in the "Natura 2000" designation process and its alleged failure to take new developments into account when handling the complaints concerning the airport extension, it should be noted that these aspects do not only concern the complainant's case but also the horizontal infringement cases as well as the runway and the hangar cases. In relation to the horizontal infringement cases, the Ombudsman does not have any information as to whether the complainant agrees with the Commission's findings concerning pSCI and SPA designations in the area around the airport. Similarly, the Ombudsman does not know the complainant's opinion on the outcome of the runway and the hangar cases, which were closed in April 2006. Should the complainant wish to pursue these aspects further by submitting a new complaint to the Ombudsman, he would therefore have to provide the Ombudsman with information on these issues.

2.5 As to the complainant's claim that the Commission should take rapid action as regards the substance of the case, the Ombudsman notes that the Commission has informed the complainant about its intention to close his case and has thus completed its assessment of the matter at issue. Therefore, the Ombudsman does not consider it necessary to pursue this aspect of the complaint further.

3 Alleged failure properly to reply to the complainant's letters and related claim

3.1 During the course of the Commission's handling of his case, the complainant contacted the Commission a number of times. On 9 May 2003, he requested information on the handling of this case as well as the details of a contact person within the Commission. On 3 July 2003, the Directorate-General for Environment ("DG Environment") informed him about the registration of his complaint. On 28 February 2004, the complainant submitted additional information to the Commission. He asked for a more expeditious handling of his case. On 4 April 2004, the Commission informed the complainant that it had decided to handle his complaint in connection with the runway case, which concerned the same subject-matter. On 19 February and on 6 and 13 September 2005, the complainant submitted further information to the Commission. In his letter of 13 September 2005, he also suggested that the Commission should send an observer to a public hearing in relation to the extension of the airport. By letter of 23 September 2005, the Commission informed the complainant that it would take the additional information into account and would inform him about the results of its examination and of any further steps it would take. On 1 October 2005, the complainant replied that he considered the information the Commission had provided him with to be "too thin", particularly in view of the length of time it had already taken to handle the matter. He asked the Commission to inform him what it was doing concretely, what its next steps were and when they would be taken. By letter of 5 October 2005, the Commission informed the complainant that it had "taken note of his opinion"(5).

In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Commission had failed properly to reply to his letters concerning his complaint, in particular to his letter of 1 October 2005. He claimed that he should be informed about the Commission's further steps in this case.

3.2 In its opinion, the Commission submitted that the complainant had sent additional comments on the cases in his letter of 13 September 2005. In accordance with the Commission's Code of Good Administrative Behaviour ("the Code"), the Commission had replied within 15 working days, namely, on 23 September 2005. The complainant had replied to this letter by fax of 1 October 2005. Since, according to the Commission, this reply did not contain any new information of substance, a simple acknowledgement of receipt had been sent to him on 5 October 2005. In summary, the Commission considered that its services had replied to the complainant in full respect of its Code and of its Communication on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law ("the Communication")(6).

As to the complainant's claim that he should be informed about the Commission's further steps, the Commission submitted that it was not possible for it to give any more information on the substance of the cases concerning the extension of the airport at this stage, since their assessment was still ongoing. The Commission stated that, in complex cases like these, its services take particular care not to give out any information that might prematurely influence national procedures or political discussions in the Member States concerned before the final assessment. The Commission stated that, in accordance with the Commission's Communication, the complainant would be informed, once a decision had been taken in the runway and the hangar cases.

In its supplementary opinion, the Commission stated that, after it sent its first opinion to the Ombudsman, it had informed the complainant of its intention to close his case and had given him the opportunity to submit additional arguments indicating a breach of Community law.

3.3 The Ombudsman notes that, in his letter of 1 October 2005, the complainant asked the Commission what it was doing concretely, what its next steps were and when they would be taken. In its reply of 5 October 2005, the Commission informed the complainant that it had "taken note of his opinion". In its opinion, the Commission submitted that, since the complainant's letter of 1 October 2005 did not contain any new information of substance, a simple acknowledgement of receipt had been sent.

It is good administrative practice to reply to letters from citizens not only within the relevant deadlines, but also in a way that is as useful to them as possible. In the present case, the complainant asked for a reply to certain questions and received a reply which did not refer to these questions at all.

The Ombudsman is aware that the responsible Commission service appears to have been handling a number of complex cases concerning the same subject-matter as the one in the complainant's case. He also notes that the Commission is concerned that it might prematurely influence national procedures or political discussions by providing certain information to complainants during an ongoing investigation. However, the Ombudsman considers that this does not permit the Commission not to address the complainant's requests for information, in particular in view of the length of time it had already taken the Commission to handle the complaint in question. It would appear that, from the date on which the complainant submitted his complaint to the Commission (5 January 2003) to the date on which he sent his request for information (1 October 2005), the complainant received very little information from the Commission with regard to his complaint. Furthermore, the Ombudsman takes the view that, if the Commission considered that it was impossible for it to provide any further substantial information to the complainant during the ongoing procedure, it could at least have given him this explanation already in reply to his requests for information, in particular in reply to his letter of 1 October 2005.

3.4 The Ombudsman concludes that the Commission's failure properly to reply to the complainant's letter of 1 October 2005 constitutes maladministration. A critical remark will be made in this respect.

3.5 As to the complainant's claim that he should be informed about the Commission's further proceedings in his case, the Ombudsman notes that the Commission has informed the complainant about its intention to close the case and that it has given him the opportunity to submit additional information. Therefore, he considers that the complainant's claim does not need to be pursued any further.

4 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 letters from citizens not only within the relevant deadlines, but also in a way that is as useful to them as possible. In the present case, the complainant wrote to the Commission asking for a reply to certain questions concerning his infringement complaint. The Ombudsman takes the view that, if the Commission considered that it had good reasons not to answer the complainant's questions it should have informed the complainant of those reasons. In fact, the Commission sent a reply which did not refer to the complainant's questions at all. This was 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 Commission will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) The German wording reads: "Wir haben Ihre Stellungnahme zur Kenntnis genommen."

(2) Commission Communication to the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law (COM/2002/0141 final), OJ 2002 C 244, p. 5.

(3) It appears that the Commission handled the complainant's submission (sent on 5 January 2003) jointly with a number of other complaints concerning the same subject-matter, which the Commission had received in 2002. This would explain why his complaint received a 2002 registration number.

(4) The decision to close the case on Multiple complaint No. 2002/5376 is available (in German) on the Commission's website (http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/complaints/multiple_complaints/index_en.htm).

(5) The German wording reads: "Wir haben Ihre Stellungnahme zur Kenntnis genommen."

(6) Commission communication to the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law (COM/2002/0141 final), OJ 2002 C 244, p. 5.