Strasbourg, 19 October 2007

Dear Mr P.,

On 31 August 2005, you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman, against the European Anti-Fraud Office ("OLAF"). Your complaint concerned OLAF's reply to a complaint you had submitted to it.

On 2 December 2005, I forwarded your complaint to OLAF, asking it to submit its opinion on your allegation concerning the language of its reply to you. OLAF sent its opinion on 20 December 2005. On 13 January 2006, I forwarded OLAF's opinion to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 21 January 2006. On 14 February 2006, OLAF sent me a letter supplementing its opinion. By letter of 4 January 2006, which I received on 23 January 2006, you made further comments in relation to your case. I replied to you by letter of 14 February 2006, with respect to which I received your additional observations on 20 March 2006.

In December 2006, your case was assigned to another legal officer in my Office, Mr I. Dimitrakopoulos.

I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made. I apologise for the delay in dealing with your complaint.

THE COMPLAINT, ITS BACKGROUND AND SUBSEQUENT CORRESPONDENCE

In his earlier complaint to the European Ombudsman (2160/2005/GK), the complainant complained about certain Greek judicial authorities and the concealment of a fraud case, which allegedly had an impact on the European Union budget. The complainant also noted that he had raised the issue before the European Court of Human Rights, which had rejected his case. The Ombudsman informed the complainant that his allegations did not fall within the Ombudsman's mandate and that he could consider submitting the case to European Anti-Fraud Office ("OLAF"). Subsequently, the complainant wrote to the Commission about the matter in a letter dated 25 February 2005. By letter dated 13 May 2005, OLAF replied to the complainant's letter of 25 February 2005 as follows:

"(...) OLAF's evaluation into your complaint has now been completed. Based on the findings, OLAF has recommended that no further action be taken. The European Commission has no competence to interfere to matters judged either by the national Judicial Authorities or by the European Court of Human Rights."

The complainant was dissatisfied with OLAF's reply and submitted the present complaint to the Ombudsman, alleging that:

(1) OLAF failed to reply to his correspondence in Greek;

(2) OLAF replied in a scornful and indifferent manner.

On 2 December 2005, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the first allegation made by the complainant. As regards the complainant's second allegation, the Ombudsman decided that there were not sufficient grounds for opening an inquiry, since the allegation was too general in nature, given that the complainant did not clarify in what way he found the content of OLAF's reply to be "scornful and indifferent”. The complainant was informed that, if he wished to pursue this matter further, he should specify his allegation concerning the content of OLAF's reply.

By letter of 4 January 2006, which the Ombudsman's services received on 23 January 2006, the complainant made extensive comments, mainly in relation to the substance of the fraud case at issue. He stated, inter alia, that he could not accept that his allegations regarding fraud were too general in nature. He requested a reply to his letter. He also attached to his letter a translation into Greek of OLAF's reply of 13 May 2005, which bore the stamp of the Greek Association of translators.

The Ombudsman replied by letter of 14 February 2006. He referred again to his mandate and made clear that he had not assessed the arguments and documents the complainant had submitted to OLAF. He also noted that the complainant had not clarified why he considered that OLAF's reply amounted to an instance of maladministration. In this regard, the Ombudsman remarked that OLAF's opinion, which had been forwarded to the complainant, contained further information about the way in which OLAF had dealt with his case and that the complainant could make relevant comments in his observations on OLAF's opinion.

THE INQUIRY

OLAF's opinion

In its opinion of 20 December 2005, OLAF explained how it dealt with the complainant's case. Since it had no competence to assess the judgments of national judicial authorities or of the European Court of Human Rights, OLFA decided (Decision No I/02948/02/05/05) that the case was a "Non Case Prima Facie". OLAF noted that an investigation could have been opened into the case if the complainant's allegations and the stated facts had been sufficiently serious and had had an impact on the European Union budget, which was not the case. OLAF also attached a copy of the complainant's file.

As regards the complainant's allegation that OLAF had replied to him in English, OLAF only stated that, since its source of information was a Commission service, to which OLAF's letter was communicated, OLAF used the English language.

By letter of 14 February 2006, OLAF supplemented its opinion. It stated that its reply of 13 May 2005 to the complainant was, indeed, in English, although, pursuant to Article 21 of the EC Treaty and Section 4 of the Commission's Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, the complainant was entitled to receive a reply in Greek, since he had written to the Commission in Greek. OLAF apologised for this oversight and enclosed a translation of its reply of 13 May 2005 into Greek.

The complainant's observations

By letter of 21 January 2006, which the Ombudsman's services received on 16 February 2006, the complainant submitted his observations on OLAF's opinion of 20 December 2005. The complainant alleged that OLAF had failed to undertake a thorough analysis of his allegations and of the evidence that he had provided. In particular, the complainant stressed, by means of a number of arguments, that the alleged fraud case had an impact on the EU budget and that his allegations were sufficiently serious. In his observations, the complainant attached copies of correspondence exchanged with certain Greek authorities in relation to the background of his complaint, which consisted of court proceedings and press articles on allegations of corruption in Greece.

By letter of 8 March 2006, the complainant replied to the Ombudsman's letter of 14 February 2006 and made further comments about the fraud case at issue.

THE DECISION

1 Preliminary remark

1.1 On 2 December 2005, the European Ombudsman decided not to open an inquiry into the complainant's allegation that OLAF had replied in a scornful and indifferent manner to his complaint. The Ombudsman found that there were not sufficient grounds for opening an inquiry, since the allegation was too general in nature (the complainant did not clarify in what way he found the content of OLAF's reply to be "scornful and indifferent"). The Ombudsman informed the complainant that, if he wished to pursue this matter further, he should specify his allegation concerning the content of OLAF's reply.

1.2 The case put forward by the complainant concerned an alleged fraud related to the establishment and activities of a company in Greece. The complainant's allegations appear to have been examined by the Greek judicial authorities, including the Greek Supreme Court in civil and criminal cases, and rejected as non-specific and unfounded. The complainant's case was also rejected by the European Court of Human Rights as inadmissible. By letter of 25 February 2005, the complainant complained to the Commission about the matter, challenging in particular the relevant decisions of the Greek judicial authorities. OLAF replied to the complainant, by letter dated 13 May 2005, as follows:

"(...) OLAF's evaluation into your complaint has now been completed. Based on the findings, OLAF has recommended that no further action be taken. The European Commission has no competence to interfere to matters judged either by the national Judicial Authorities or by the European Court of Human Rights."

In its opinion on the present complaint, OLAF explained that, since it had no competence to assess the judgments of national judicial authorities or of the European Court of Human Rights, it decided that the case was a "non case prima facie". OLAF added that an investigation could have been opened into the case if the complainant's allegations and the stated facts had been sufficiently serious and had had an impact on the European Union budget, which was not the case.

1.3 In his observations on OLAF's opinion, the complainant considered that OLAF had failed to undertake a proper analysis of his allegations and of the evidence that he had provided. In particular, the complainant emphasised, by making a number of arguments, that the alleged fraud case had an impact on the EU budget and that his allegations were sufficiently serious.

1.4 After taking into consideration

1. the content of the complainant's complaint to the Commission, a copy of which was attached to OLAF's opinion;
2. OLAF's above explanation for its decision on the complaint;
3. the fact that the complainant's allegations about fraud have been rejected by the judicial authorities of Greece as not sufficiently specific and unfounded; and
4. the complainant's observations in support of his allegation that OLAF did not properly investigate and assess his case,

the Ombudsman concludes that the complainant has not demonstrated, in a sufficiently precise and cogent way, that OLAF's decision on his complaint involved a manifest error of assessment of specific arguments and supporting evidence presented in his complaint of 25 February 2005 to the Commission. The Ombudsman, thus, considers that there are not sufficient grounds for extending the scope of his present inquiry to the complainant's above-mentioned allegation.

2 Allegation that OLAF failed to reply to the complainant in Greek

2.1 By letter of 25 February 2005, written in Greek, the complainant complained to the Commission about a fraud case. By letter of 13 May 2005, OLAF replied to this complaint in English. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complainant's allegation that OLAF had failed to reply to his complaint in Greek. In his letter of 4 January 2006 to the Ombudsman, the complainant made extensive comments in relation to the substance of the fraud case at issue and attached to his letter a translation into Greek of OLAF's reply of 13 May 2005.

2.2 In its initial opinion of 20 December 2005, OLAF only stated that, since its source of information was a Commission service, to which OLAF's letter was communicated, OLAF used the English language. By letter of 14 February 2006, supplementing its opinion, OLAF stated that its reply of 13 May 2005 to the complainant was, indeed, in English, although, pursuant to Article 21 of the EC Treaty and Section 4 of the Commission's Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, the complainant was entitled to receive a reply in Greek, since he had written to the Commission in Greek. OLAF apologised for this oversight and attached to its letter a translation of its reply of 13 May 2005 into Greek.

2.3 The Ombudsman notes that OLAF (i) acknowledged that it had wrongly failed to reply to the complainant in Greek, (ii) apologised for this failure, and (iii) provided a translation of its reply in Greek. In relation to point (iii), it appears that OLAF was unaware that, at the time it provided the relevant translation to the complainant, he was already in possession of such a translation. The Ombudsman, thus, considers that no further inquiry into, and consideration of, the complainant's allegation is justified. OLAF's letter expressing its apologies for its above shortcoming will be communicated to the complainant together with the present decision.

3 Conclusion

For the reasons mentioned in point 2.3 of the present decision, the Ombudsman considers that it would not be justified to inquire further into, and consider, the complainant's allegation that OLAF wrongly failed to reply to him in Greek. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The Director General of OLAF will be also informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS