Strasbourg, 19 December 2006

Dear Mr X,

On 26 April 2006, you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman on behalf of Y. Your complaint was against the European Anti-Fraud Office ("OLAF") and concerned its alleged failure to reply to your letters.

On 3 July 2006, I forwarded the complaint to the Director-General of OLAF. OLAF sent its opinion on 12 September 2006 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished, by 31 October 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.

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the relevant facts are, in summary, the following:

OLAF failed to acknowledge receipt of the two complaints submitted by him on behalf of Y, sent by registered post on 17 August 2005, and to inform Y about its handling of them. The first letter referred to irregularities which led to the exclusion of a project proposal from the second round of the Community Initiative EQUAL in a Member State. The second letter concerned the latest developments in relation to Y's complaint of 20 January 2003 about irregular actions and omissions in the framework of a Community Operational Programme.

The complainant sent two reminder letters to OLAF by registered post on 8 March 2006. However, he did not receive any reply. Since he considered that he had a right to be informed about the receipt of his complaints and about how they were being handled, he complained to the European Ombudsman.

The complainant alleged, in summary, that OLAF had failed to acknowledge receipt of the two complaints, dated 16 and 17 August 2005, with reminders dated 7 and 8 March 2006, and to inform him of its handling thereof.

THE INQUIRY

OLAF's opinion

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

On 16 and 17 August 2005(1), the complainant sent OLAF two letters, making allegations concerning European Social Fund projects in a Member State. On 7 and 8 March 2006(2), the complainant sent OLAF additional letters concerning the allegations made in his letters of August 2005. The complainant made a complaint to the Ombudsman on 26 April 2006.

On 28 July 2006, OLAF replied to the complainant's letters of August 2005 and March 2006, apologising for not having sent an acknowledgement of receipt earlier and stating that it had completed its initial assessment of the materials submitted and that it recommended that no further action should be taken, on the grounds that the allegations fell outside OLAF's area of responsibility.

In its opinion, OLAF regretted that an acknowledgement of receipt had not been sent to the complainant within 15 working days of receiving his letters, as required by Point 4 of the Commission's Code of Good Administrative Behaviour ("the Commission's Code"). As indicated above, OLAF had already apologised for this oversight in its letter of 28 July 2006 to the complainant, in which it also provided a full reply to the allegations which he had brought forward.

In conducting an initial assessment of the issues raised in the complainant's correspondence of August 2005 and March 2006, OLAF had to take certain steps, including consultations with other Commission services. It was only after the preliminary assessment had been completed that OLAF was in a position to provide a substantive reply to the complainant. This is why several months had passed between the receipt of the complainant's letters and OLAF's reply. However, the complainant had now received a full substantive reply to his letters.

The complainant's observations

The complainant was invited to submit observations on the opinion. No observations were submitted by the complainant.

THE DECISION

1 The alleged failure by OLAF to acknowledge receipt and to inform the complainant of its handling of the two complaints

1.1 According to the complainant, OLAF failed to acknowledge receipt of the two complaints submitted by him on behalf of Y. The complaints were sent by registered post on 17 August 2005 and concerned irregularities in EU funded projects in a Member State. The complainant also alleged that OLAF had failed to inform him about its handling thereof. He sent two reminder letters to OLAF, by registered post on 8 March 2006. However, he did not receive any reply. Since the complainant considered that he had a right to receive from OLAF an acknowledgment of receipt of the complaints and an account of OLAF's handling of the complaints, he complained to the European Ombudsman. The complainant alleged, in summary, that OLAF failed to acknowledge receipt and to inform him of its handling of the two complaints, dated 16 and 17 August 2005, with reminders dated 7 and 8 March 2006.

1.2 In its opinion, OLAF confirmed that, on 16 and 17 August 2005, the complainant sent OLAF two letters, making allegations concerning European Social Fund projects in a Member State. On 7 and 8 March 2006, the complainant sent OLAF additional letters concerning the allegations made in the August 2005 letters. On 28 July 2006, OLAF replied to the complainant's letters of August 2005 and March 2006, apologising for not having sent an acknowledgement of receipt earlier and stating that it had completed its initial assessment of the materials submitted and that it recommended that no further action should be taken, on the grounds that the allegations fell outside OLAF's area of responsibility.

In its opinion, OLAF regretted that an acknowledgement of receipt had not been sent to the complainant within 15 working days of receiving his letters, as required by Point 4 of the Commission's Code. OLAF had already apologised for this oversight in its letter of 28 July 2006 to the complainant, in which it also provided a full substantive reply to the allegations he had made.

OLAF explained that the delay noted between the receipt of the complainant's letters and the sending of its reply was due to consultations with other Commission services. OLAF had been in a position to provide a substantive reply to the complainant only after the preliminary assessment was completed. However, the complainant had finally received a full substantive reply to his letters.

1.3 The Ombudsman recalls that principles of good administration require the Community institutions and bodies to acknowledge receipt of correspondence from the public. This requirement is explicitly laid down in the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour ("the European Code"), which stipulates that every letter or complaint shall receive an acknowledgement of receipt within a period of two weeks, except if a substantive reply can be sent within that period(3). Furthermore, according to the Commission's Code of Good Administrative Behaviour ("the Commission's Code") referred to by OLAF, a reply to a letter addressed to the Commission shall be sent within fifteen working days from the date of receipt of the letter. OLAF admits that, in the present case, it failed to follow the Commission's Code. The Ombudsman notes that OLAF replied to the complainant, thereby acknowledging his correspondence, only on 28 July 2006, that is, almost a year after he sent his first letters and only after he had complained to the Ombudsman. This amounts to an instance of maladministration.

1.4 The Ombudsman further recalls that the European Code also requires the institutions to provide members of the public with the information that they request(4). Furthermore, Article 17 of the European Code stipulates that:

"1. The official shall ensure that a decision on every request or complaint to the Institution is taken within a reasonable time-limit, without delay, and in any case no later than two months from the date of receipt. The same rule shall apply for answering letters from members of the public (...).

2. If a request or a complaint to the Institution cannot, because of the complexity of the matters which it raises, be decided upon within the above mentioned time-limit, the official shall inform the author thereof as soon as possible. In that case, a definitive decision should be notified to the author in the shortest time."

1.5 In view of the content of the above provisions of good administration, the Ombudsman considers that if, as argued in its opinion, OLAF concluded that the two complaints of 16 and 17 August 2005 could not be responded to within the relevant time-limit, it should have informed the complainant accordingly. However, as indicated in point 1.3 above, OLAF replied to the complainant only 11 months after the receipt of his complaints, informing him of its handling thereof. OLAF therefore failed to respond to his complaints within a reasonable time. This constitutes a further instance of maladministration.

1.6 However, the Ombudsman notes that OLAF, in its reply of 28 July 2006, duly apologised to the complainant for failing to acknowledge receipt of his correspondence and informed him of its handling of the two complaints. OLAF reiterated its apology in the opinion on the present complaint. The Ombudsman further notes that OLAF's letter of 28 July 2006 appears to have dealt with the substance of the complaints and letters addressed to it by the complainant. OLAF's opinion was forwarded to the complainant for observations. However, no observations were received from the complainant. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that there are no grounds further to pursue his inquiry in the present case.

2 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appear to be no grounds further to pursue the issue of OLAF's failure to acknowledge receipt of the complainant's two complaints, dated 16 and 17 August 2005, with reminders dated 7 and 8 March 2006, and to inform him of its handling thereof.

The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

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

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) It should be noted that, according to the complainant, his complaints were dated 16 and 17 August 2005, but were both sent by registered post on 17 August 2005.

(2) According to the complainant, his letters were dated 7 and 8 March 2006, but were both sent by registered post on 8 March 2006.

(3) Article 14(1) of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, available on the Ombudsman's website (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/code/en/default.htm).

(4) Article 22(1) of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, available on the Ombudsman's website (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/code/en/default.htm).