Strasbourg, 20 December 2006

Dear Mr G.,

On 10 December 2005, you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman, on behalf of "SZIKE" Environmental & Health Association, against the European Commission, concerning correspondence with Commission services.

On 17 January 2006, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission with a request to provide an opinion by 30 April 2006. By letter of 12 May 2006, the Commission informed me that its opinion on your complaint would be delayed and apologised for this delay.

The Commission sent the English version of its opinion on 16 May 2006, and its Hungarian translation on 30 May 2006. I forwarded the translation of the opinion to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished, by 30 June 2006. No observations have been received from you.

On 19 October 2006, my services contacted the responsible service of the Commission and requested it to forward a copy of its letter of 24 November 2005 sent to the "SZIKE" Environmental & Health Association, to which the Commission had referred in its opinion but had not attached. Further to that request, on 20 October 2006, the Commission forwarded the copy of the Commission's letter in question.

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

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, who is the president of the "SZIKE" Environmental & Health Association and on whose behalf he brought the present complaint, the relevant facts are, in summary, as follows:

On 25 May 2005, the complainant wrote a letter in Hungarian to Commissioner Dimas (responsible for environmental matters), concerning the construction of a ring road around Budapest, Hungary (the M0 motorway). On behalf of Commissioner Dimas, the European Commission's Directorate-General Environment ("DG Environment") replied to the letter on 7 July 2005, in English. The complainant wrote another letter to DG Environment in Hungarian (sent on 29 July 2005), to which it replied on 12 September 2005, again in English.

On 29 September 2005, the complainant turned to DG Environment again and submitted an infringement complaint against the Hungarian State for the alleged violation of several EU directives. This complaint was submitted in Hungarian. On 2 December 2005, DG Environment replied to the complainant in English.

On 10 December 2005, the complainant made the present complaint to the Ombudsman. In his complaint, the complainant alleged that:

1. the Commission had failed to observe the provisions of Article 13 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour when it replied in its letters of 7 July, 12 September and 2 December 2005 in English, despite the fact that the complainant had written to the Commission in Hungarian.
2. the Commission, in its letter of 2 December 2005, had failed to provide clear and understandable information about the transfer of the complainant's infringement complaint to the competent Unit within DG Environment.

By letter of 17 January 2006, the Ombudsman informed the complainant that there were insufficient grounds for an inquiry into the second allegation on the basis of Article 195 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, because the Commission appeared to have provided precise information about the transfer to the complainant in a letter it had sent on 12 December 2005. The Ombudsman therefore requested the Commission to submit an opinion only on the first allegation.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion, the Commission made, in summary, the following comments:

The Commission first set out the background of the case by explaining that, since the early 1990s, plans have been made to build a ring road around Budapest (the M0 motorway). As regards its proposed eastern section, citizens and municipalities had expressed concerns. Furthermore, legal proceedings had also been initiated before the national courts, claiming that several laws had not been respected, in particular as regards the sections in close vicinity of the municipalities of Csömör, Árpádföld and Kisszentmihály. As Community co-funding had been involved, municipal action groups of the above three municipalities, together with the "SZIKE" Environmental & Health Association, represented by its president, the complainant, had, since mid-2005, addressed a series of letters to the Commission.

As a preliminary point, the Commission pointed out that the complainant did not, at any point, express his dissatisfaction with the use of English, or make the appropriate prior administrative approaches to the Commission's services prior to lodging his complaint with the Ombudsman (as required by Article 2(4) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman). Nevertheless, in the spirit of good co-operation with the Ombudsman, the Commission addressed the subject-matter of the complaint.

On the substance of the complaint, Commission made the following comments:

The Commission's letter of 7 July 2005 was a reply to a letter dated 28 May 2005 and addressed to Commissioner Dimas. This letter, which initiated the subsequent correspondence, was written in English and was accompanied by another letter written in Hungarian concerning the M0 motorway, signed by the complainant and by the representatives of the three municipal action groups of Csömör, Árpádföld and Kisszentmihály, and dated "7 June 2005". The Commission pointed out that the complainant sent a copy of a different version of this second letter to the Ombudsman: the version attached to the complaint was dated 25 May 2005, whereas the one originally sent to the Commission was dated 7 June 2005. Furthermore, on 9 June 2005, the same documents, together with the letter of 28 May 2005, were also sent by e-mail to Commissioner Dimas.

The Commission's letter of 12 September 2005 was a reply to a letter (without a date) addressed to DG Environment, which was written in Hungarian and signed by the complainant and two of the three initial municipal action groups (Csömör and Kisszentmihály). The Commission registered this letter on 22 August 2005. The Commission supposed that this letter was the one to which the complainant had referred as the letter dated 29 July 2005, and it was a reply to the Commission's letter of 7 July 2005. The Commission added that, on 25 August 2005, the cabinet of Commissioner Dimas also received an e-mail in English, sent on behalf of the three municipal action groups, Csömör, Árpádföld and Kisszentmihály, inquiring about the receipt of the letter allegedly dated 29 July 2005.

As regards the alleged letter of 2 December 2005 sent by DG Environment, the Commission pointed out that it had not dispatched a letter on that day, and that it therefore assumed that the date in question referred to when the complainant received the Commission's letter of 24 November 2005 (registration N° 247146). This letter of 24 November 2005 was the Commission's reply to the complainant's letter, also written in English, of 7 November 2005, sent by fax on 22 November 2005, and in which the complainant inquired whether the Commission had received its petition sent on 29 September 2005.

The Commission, in accordance with its own Code of Good Administrative Behaviour(1), replied to the complainant's letters in the language of the initial letter (of 28 May 2005). Since the initial letter addressed to Commissioner Dimas was written in English, the Commission replied to it in English. Furthermore, in the subsequent letters and e-mails to the Commission, the complainant continued to use both Hungarian and English, and also elaborated on specific points contained in the Commission's letters written in English. In addition, as the complainant had, on several occasions, underlined the urgency of his association's concerns, the Commission services believed that they were acting in good faith and in the interest of the complainant when they replied in English thereby avoiding additional delays due to the translation of these replies.

The Commission pointed out that it was only through the complaint lodged with the Ombudsman that its services became aware of the complainant's language difficulties. The Commission regretted that this issue was raised only at this late stage. If it had known that this might have caused inconveniences to the complainant, all letters written in English would obviously have been followed by their respective Hungarian translations or would have been drafted in Hungarian in the first place.

The Commission added that the complainant had filed a petition with the European Parliament concerning the M0 motorway of Budapest, which was also transmitted to the Commission. On 16 December 2005, the Commission had informed the complainant that the case had been registered as a complaint regarding a possible infringement of Community law. All relevant correspondence with the complainant had been conducted exclusively in Hungarian. The complainant had also been informed of the Commission's decision to close the case in the absence of a breach of Community legislation.

The complainant's observations

No observations were received from the complainant by the date set for this purpose.

THE DECISION

1 Preliminary remarks on admissibility

1.1 The complainant stated that it had addressed three letters to the Commission, one on 25 May 2005, another one on 29 July 2005 and a third one on 29 September 2005. In his complaint, the complainant alleged that the Commission has failed to observe the provisions of Article 13 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, when it replied in its letters of 7 July, 12 September and 2 December 2005 in English, despite the fact that the complainant had written to the Commission in Hungarian.

1.2 In its opinion, the Commission pointed out that the complainant had not, as required by Article 2(4) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman, made any administrative approaches to the Commission services concerning the subject of his complaint prior to lodging this complaint with the European Ombudsman. Nevertheless, in the spirit of good co-operation with the Ombudsman, the Commission addressed the subject-matter of the complaint.

1.3 In view of the Commission's above statement, the Ombudsman considers it necessary to clarify that, when opening the present inquiry, he took the view that the Commission had, a priori, an obligation, in accordance with Article 13 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour and with its own Code of Conduct, to reply to letters in the same language. The Ombudsman therefore considered that requesting the complainant to ask the Commission to comply with this obligation would be an empty formality and not an "appropriate" prior administrative approach within the meaning of Article 2(4) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman . The Ombudsman therefore considered the complainant's allegation to be admissible. In retrospect, however, and in view of the results of his inquiry, the Ombudsman agrees that it would have been useful if the complainant had given the Commission the opportunity to clarify the situation before submitting a complaint to him.

2 The Commission's alleged failure to observe the provisions of Article 13 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour

2.1 The complainant alleged that the Commission failed to observe the provisions of Article 13 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, when it replied, in its letters of 7 July, 12 September and 2 December 2005, in English to the complainant's letters, written in Hungarian, of 25 May, 29 July and 29 September 2005, respectively.

2.2 In its opinion, the Commission stated that its reply of 7 July 2005 was a reply to a letter dated 28 May 2005, addressed to Commissioner Dimas and written in English. This letter was accompanied by another letter concerning the M0 motorway, written in Hungarian, signed by the complainant and by the representatives of the three municipal action groups of Csömör, Árpádföld and Kisszentmihály, and dated "7 June 2005". The Commission pointed out that the complainant sent a copy of a different version of this second letter to the Ombudsman. The version attached to the complaint was dated 25 May 2005, whereas the one originally sent to the Commission was dated 7 June 2005.

The Commission further stated that its reply of 12 September 2005 was a reply to the complainant's letter, which was registered by the Commission on 22 August 2005 (allegedly sent on 29 July 2005), written in Hungarian, and to the complainant's e-mail of 25 August 2005, written in English.

Finally, the Commission's reply of 24 November 2005 (to which the complainant referred to as the letter of 2 December 2005) written in English was a reply to the complainant's letter of 7 November 2005, sent by fax on 22 November 2005, also written in English, and in which the complainant inquired whether the Commission had received its petition sent on 29 September 2005. The Commission pointed out that it had not dispatched a letter on 2 December 2005.

The Commission argued that, since the initial letter of 28 May 2005 addressed to it had been written in English, it had, in accordance with its own Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, replied to the complainant's letters in English. It further noted that in his subsequent letters and e-mails to the Commission, the complainant had kept using both Hungarian and English, and elaborated on specific points of the Commission's letters, which were written in English. The Commission furthermore submitted that since the complainant had, on several occasions, underlined the urgency of the matter, its services had believed that they were acting in good faith and in the interest of the complainant when they replied in English thereby avoiding additional delays due to the translation of these replies. The Commission only became aware of the complainant's language difficulties through the present complaint and regretted that the issue was raised only at this late stage. It stated that if it had known that this might have caused inconveniences to the complainant, all letters written in English would obviously have been followed by their respective Hungarian translations or would have been drafted in Hungarian in the first place. The Commission further pointed out that the correspondence concerning the complainant's infringement complaint, submitted on 29 September 2005, had been conducted exclusively in Hungarian.

2.3 As a preliminary point, the Ombudsman finds it necessary to clarify, on the basis of the documents which are contained in the file, which of the Commission's letters were a reply to which of the complainant's letters:

The Commission's reply of 7 July 2005

The Commission's letter of 7 July 2005 was a reply to a letter of 28 May 2005, which was written in English to Commissioner Dimas, concerning the construction of the M0 motorway of Budapest. The Commission's reply began: "Thank you for your letter of 28 May to Commissioner Dimas ...", and it was written in English.

The complainant submitted that he addressed a letter written in Hungarian to the Commission on 25 May 2005. In its opinion, the Commission did not address this issue, but stated that the first letter that was addressed to it was dated 28 May 2005 and was accompanied by another letter that was dated 7 June 2005. The Ombudsman notes that the contents of this last letter and of the letter dated 25 May 2005 which was submitted to him by the complainant are identical, the only difference being that the letter provided by the complainant was only signed by the representative of the municipal action group of Kisszentmihály whereas the letter dated 7 June 2005 was signed by the complainant and the representatives of the three municipal action groups of Csömör, Árpádföld and Kisszentmihály. In the absence of any explanations from the complainant concerning these differences, the Ombudsman presumes that the document dated 25 May 2005 provided by the complainant was an earlier version of the letter that was actually sent to the Commission. It is not clear why this letter, which appears to have been attached to the letter of 28 May 2005, was dated 7 June 2005, unless one is to assume that the letter dated 28 May 2005 was in fact only sent to the Commission on or after 7 June 2005. Given the fact that the Commission's letter of 7 July 2005 explicitly stated that it was a reply to the letter of 28 May 2005, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate to regard this letter as the initial letter sent to the Commission.

The Commission's reply of 12 September 2005

The Commission's letter of 12 September 2005 was a reply to (i) an undated letter in Hungarian, presumably sent on 29 July 2005 by the complainant, in reply to the Commission's letter of 7 July 2005, and (ii) to the complainant's e-mail of 25 August 2005, in which the complainant inquired, in English, about the receipt of the letter presumably sent on 29 July 2005. The Commission's reply began: "Thank you for your letter (without date) which we received in August 2005 and by which you refer to my reply of 7 th July, 2005". It was written in English.

The Commission's reply of 24 November 2005

The Commission's letter of 24 November 2005 was a reply to the complainant's letter of 7 November 2005, which was written in English and in which the complainant wrote: "We kindly request you to inform us whether you have received our petition posted on 29 th September 2005." The Commission's reply began: "Thank you for your letter dated 7 th November, 2005 by which you inquire about the receipt of your correspondence of end September 2005", and was written in English. In this regard, the Ombudsman notes that the Commission's letter of 24 November 2005 was not a reply to the complainant's letter of 29 September 2005, as the complainant suggested in his complaint to the Ombudsman.

2.4 The Ombudsman notes that Article 13 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour provides that "[t]he official shall ensure that every citizen of the Union or any member of the public who writes to the Institution in one of the Treaty languages receives an answer in the same language. The same shall apply as far as possible to legal persons such as associations (NGOs) and companies." The Ombudsman also notes that Point 4 (Dealing with enquiries) of the Commission's own Code of Good Administrative Behaviour provides that "members of the public who write to the Commission shall receive a reply in the language of their initial letter, provided that it was written in one of the official languages of the European Union".

2.5 On the basis of the above, the Ombudsman notes that the Commission has in fact replied to all the complainant's correspondence in the same language as the language used by the complainant, with the exception of its reply of 12 September 2005, which was drafted in English and which replied both to an undated letter written in Hungarian and to an e-mail (of 25 August 2005) written in English.

2.6 However, it should be noted that the complainant himself used both Hungarian and English in his letters to the Commission and that he never made it clear that he wished to receive replies only in Hungarian. Regard should also be had to the fact that the Commission has regretted the inconvenience caused by the use of English in the correspondence and explained that if it had known about the complainant's language difficulties, all letters written in English would obviously have been followed by their respective Hungarian translations or would have been drafted in Hungarian in the first place.

2.7 It should also be noted that the Commission's letter of 7 July 2005 appears to have been provided as a reply both to the letter of 28 May 2005, which was written in English, and to the letter of 7 June 2005, which was written in Hungarian. In this regard, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission acted reasonably, when it provided a reply to these letters in English, which was the language used in the first letter, i.e., in the letter of 28 May 2005, despite the fact that a letter in Hungarian had been attached to it.

2.8 In the above circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that no instance of maladministration by the Commission can be found.

3 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the Commission. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The President of the Commission will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) Commission Decision of 17 October 2000 amending its Rules of Procedure, OJ 2000 L 267, p. 63-66.