(Made in accordance with Article 3 (6) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman(1))

THE REASONS FOR THE OWN-INITIATIVE INQUIRY

Background

On 20 March 1996, Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. ("IH", a German NGO, applied to the European Commission's Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid ("ECHO"), requesting to be allowed to sign the 'Framework Partnership Agreement' ("FPA"). As a general rule, ECHO carries out its humanitarian work with partner agencies that have signed the FPA, which defines the roles, the rights and the obligations of the partners and the legal provisions that are applicable. This allows ECHO to proceed quickly without having to verify each time the eligibility of an implementing organisation.

IH's application was rejected on 19 July 2001.

The way in which the Commission handled this application was criticised by IH and ultimately gave rise to two complaints lodged by IH (complaints 1702/2001/GG and 2862/2004/GG) and an own-initiative inquiry (OI/4/2005/GG). Further details on the background are set out in the Ombudsman's decisions on these two complaints and in the draft recommendation that was made in case OI/4/2005/GG(2).

Complaint 1155/2006/GG

On 11 April 2006, IH submitted a complaint to the Ombudsman (complaint 1155/2006/GG) that concerned an internal note which had been drawn up by the Commission on 11 September 2001 and which concerned IH.

In this note, Mrs S., one of ECHO's heads of units, informed the heads of four other ECHO units that her unit had been contacted by another Commission service, the EuropeAid Co-operation Office ("AIDCO"), which had informed it about (a) certain problems it had with IH in relation to a contract and (b) the fact that AIDCO had therefore decided to terminate this contract with IH and to recover EUR 37 741 out of an advance payment of EUR 50 902. Copies of the relevant documents that ECHO had received from AIDCO were attached to the note.

Mrs S. added that IH had been pressing ECHO for some years to sign the FPA and that it had "recently attacked ECHO for misadministration [sic] in the selection procedure of partners, lack of transparency and discrimination". Copies of its correspondence on this issues with IH were attached to the note.

Mrs S. concluded by informing the addressees of the note that she "would be grateful if you would ensure that your staff is informed of the situation so that we can avoid any involvement with this NGO."

IH also referred to a letter written by the same person to Mr Struan Stevenson MEP on 6 November 2001. In this letter, Mrs S. submitted that, by refusing to submit to an audit, IH had "excluded itself from the process" for signing the FPA. Mrs S. added the following remark: "Should Internationaler Hilfsfonds agree to submit to an audit on its premises, ECHO will reconsider its application, and only under these circumstances will [it] be able to decide on the NGO's eligibility."

According to IH, these documents showed that the Commission had orchestrated a discriminatory behaviour behind its back. IH also alleged that by omitting to mention the fact that it had decided to suspend IH (as evidenced by its note of 11 September 2001), the Commission had lied to and deceived the MEP. In IH's view, the Commission had also deceived the Ombudsman.

IH noted that it had brought the issue to the Commission's attention in a letter sent on 10 April 2006. In this letter, IH pointed out that it had only recently found out about this note.

Both the complaint and IH's letter of 10 April 2006 to the Commission to which the complaint referred raised a considerable number of issues. The complaint alone referred to six articles of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour that, in IH's view, had been violated (Articles 5, 6, 7, 11, 16 and 18). IH also alleged that the information concerning the AIDCO case that was set out in the note of 11 September 2001 and in the AIDCO documents themselves was wrong.

However, IH subsequently informed the Ombudsman that, in late April 2006, it had submitted the same facts to the Court of First Instance. The Ombudsman, therefore, informed IH that he had to reject its complaint on the basis of Article 195 of the EC Treaty pursuant to which the Ombudsman may not deal with a complaint where the relevant facts are the subject of legal proceedings.

Complaint 1434/2006/GG

On 15 May 2006, IH informed the Ombudsman that it had decided to withdraw the application that it had lodged with the Court. In a letter sent the same day, IH renewed its complaint to the Ombudsman. Its letter of 15 May 2006 was, therefore, registered as a new complaint (complaint 1434/2006/GG).

The Ombudsman's approach

The Ombudsman considered that it was neither feasible nor practicable to try and deal with all the issues that IH had raised in its complaint, some of which appeared to concern other inquiries that were either pending or had already been concluded.

In the Ombudsman's view, the core of IH's case could be summarised as follows:

The complainant in essence alleges that it emerges from ECHO's internal note of 11 September 2001 that the Commission decided, without hearing the complainant, to blacklist it on the grounds that it had raised allegations of maladministration against the Commission. In the complainant's view, the Commission thereby acted in a discriminatory, disproportionate, abusive and unfair way. The complainant further alleges that, by omitting to disclose this decision, the Commission deceived both the member of the European Parliament, to whom it had written on 6 November 2001, and the European Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman therefore asked the Commission for an opinion on these allegations.

The results of the Ombudsman's inquiry

In its opinion, the Commission submitted that IH had received a copy of the relevant note on 15 January 2002, when it had been granted access to the Commission's file. In the Commission's view, the complaint should, therefore, be declared inadmissible, in accordance with Article 2(4) of the Ombudsman's Statute.

In its observations, IH confirmed that it had received a copy of the note of 11 September 2001 already in January 2002. It stressed, however, that, at the time, it had failed to grasp the significance of this note.

Article 2(4) of the Ombudsman's Statute provides that a complaint "shall be made within two years of the date on which the facts on which it is based came to the attention of the person lodging the complaint".

Complaint 1434/2006/GG was based on the contents of the note of 11 September 2001. However, and as IH had confirmed in its observations on the Commission's opinion, IH had obtained a copy of this note already in January 2002. The Ombudsman considered that cases were conceivable where the relevant point in time triggering the deadline foreseen by Article 2(4) of the Ombudsman's Statute is not the moment when a copy of the relevant document is obtained, but the moment when a complainant realizes that this document constitutes (at least in his view) evidence of maladministration. This could, for instance, be the case where the document concerned is voluminous, detailed and difficult to understand and where the complainant could not be expected to examine it immediately and thoroughly upon obtaining a copy thereof.

The Ombudsman noted, however, that the text of document at issue in the present case covers less than half a page and would not appear to be difficult to understand.

In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considered that the Commission's objection was justified and that the complaint needed to be declared inadmissible. The Ombudsman found it appropriate to point out that it was through the Commission's opinion and the complainant's observations that he had become aware of the fact that the deadline set out in Article 2(4) of his Statute had not been respected.

The Ombudsman therefore closed the present inquiry.

However, given the seriousness of the allegations raised by IH the Ombudsman considered that they should be examined in an own-initiative inquiry. It appears useful to note that Article 2(4) of the Ombudsman's Statute does not apply to own-initiative inquiries.

Further considerations

In its opinion on complaint 1434/2006/GG, the Commission, whilst taking the view that the complaint was inadmissible, had also set out its views as regards the substance of IH's allegations. IH had been given, and made use of, the possibility to make observations on this opinion.

The Ombudsman, therefore, considers that there is no need to ask the Commission for a further opinion within the framework of the present own-initiative inquiry. Instead, the results of the inquiry into complaint 1434/2006/GG can directly be used for the purposes of the present own-initiative inquiry.

Given that the comments made by the Commission and IH as regards the admissibility of complaint 1434/2006/GG are not relevant for this new inquiry, they do not need to be set out in the following text.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion on complaint 1434/2006/GG, the Commission made the following comments on the substance of IH's allegations:

It was important to clarify the nature of the note of 11 September 2001 and to interpret it in the light of its factual and temporal context. Contrary to IH's allegation, the note could not be presented as a decision against IH or an order to other units.

The note of 11 September 2001 was an internal document informing other heads of unit at ECHO of the grounds for concern regarding IH that were expressed at a given moment in time. The information that was made available through this note consisted of the following:

• AIDCO transmitted to ECHO three documents concerning a recovery order on a contract concluded between AIDCO and IH;
  
• AIDCO had recently contacted ECHO in order to acquire further information on IH;
  
• AIDCO informed ECHO of the problems it was having with IH (unilateral change of partner organisations in violation of the contract, severe lack in reporting) which had led to its decision to terminate the contract and recover EUR 37 741 out of EUR 50 902;
  
• IH had applied to sign the FPA but had refused an eligibility audit which was to be carried out at its headquarters by ECHO auditors. On these grounds, the application to sign the FPA had been rejected.

ECHO's mandate was primarily to save and preserve lives through the most reliable implementing partners. Information from other Commission services and ECHO itself casting doubt on the financial and operational capacities of a given NGO could not be withheld from other units. The regular exchange of information within the Commission and within its services had to be seen as a mechanism assuring sound financial management and financial risk control. Furthermore, it had to be stressed that IH was fully aware of the information in question.

In view of the above, the note of 11 September 2001 could not be presented as a Commission decision or an order to other services of ECHO to blacklist IH, on the grounds that it had raised allegations of maladministration against the Commission.

IH could not substantiate any allegation of blacklisting as it had not submitted any project proposal to ECHO since June 1996. Moreover, IH had not applied to sign the new FPA in 2004, after the expiry of the previous FPA in 2003. In these circumstances, IH had failed to explain how the Commission could have acted in a discriminatory, disproportionate, abusive and unfair way towards it.

What might appear as an additional new element, namely, the allegation that by omitting to disclose the so-called decision to blacklist IH the Commission deceived both the MEP to whom ECHO wrote on 6 November 2001 and the Ombudsman, was not a fact but a personal interpretation of the facts. This was a very serious and grave allegation not only against the Commission but also against individual civil servants.

In light of the nature and content of the note of 11 September 2001, ECHO did not consider it was relevant for the reply to the MEP and thus necessary to enclose it. The Commission could therefore not agree with IH's allegation that it had deceived the MEP, to whom it wrote on 6 November 2001, and the Ombudsman.

The Commission therefore considered that IH's allegations were unfounded.

IH's observations

The Commission's opinion was forwarded to IH. In its observations on this opinion, IH maintained its allegations. IH submitted that since the hierarchical structure of ECHO did not allow Mrs S. to become active of her own volition, it was clear that the note of 11 September 2001 had been preceded by a decision to boycott IH that had been adopted by the Directors or the Director-General of ECHO. It was impossible to assume that Mrs S. might have taken a decision of such importance on her own and without the agreement of her superiors. There must have been at least an internal note concerning the background of this decision. However, no such note was found in the file that ECHO had made accessible to the complainant. ECHO had, therefore, failed to grant proper access to its file. The Ombudsman should find maladministration in this regard as well.

The Commission's opinion did not contain any expression of regrets. The Ombudsman should therefore take a firm stand in order to prevent such maladministration from happening again in the future.

THE DECISION

1 The relevant facts and the scope of the present inquiry

1.1 On 20 March 1996, Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. ("IH", a German NGO) submitted an application to the European Commission's Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid ("ECHO"). In this application, IH requested that it be allowed to sign the 'Framework Partnership Agreement' ("FPA"). As a general rule, ECHO carries out its humanitarian work with partner agencies that have signed the FPA, which defines the roles, the rights and the obligations of the partners and the legal provisions that are applicable. This allows ECHO to proceed quickly without having to verify each time the eligibility of an implementing organisation.

IH's application was rejected on 19 July 2001.

1.2 The way in which the Commission handled this application was criticised by IH and ultimately gave rise to two complaints lodged by IH (complaints 1702/2001/GG and 2862/2004/GG) and an own-initiative inquiry (OI/4/2005/GG). Further details on the background are set out in the Ombudsman's decisions on these two complaints and in the draft recommendation that was made in case OI/4/2005/GG(3).

1.3 On 11 September 2001, Mrs S., one of ECHO's heads of units, wrote an internal note concerning IH. In this note, she informed the heads of four other ECHO units that her unit had been contacted by another Commission service, the EuropeAid Co-operation Office ("AIDCO"), which had informed it of "the problems AIDCO is having with this NGO (unilateral change of partner organisations in violation of the contract, severe lack in reporting") and of the fact that AIDCO had, therefore, decided to terminate a contract with IH and to recover EUR 37 741 out of an advance payment of EUR 50 902.

Mrs S. added that IH had been pressing ECHO for some years to sign the FPA and that it had "recently attacked ECHO for misadministration [sic] in the selection procedure of partners, lack of transparency and discrimination".

Mrs S. concluded by informing the addressees of the note that she "would be grateful if you would ensure that your staff is informed of the situation so that we can avoid any involvement with this NGO."

1.4 On 6 November 2001, Mrs S. wrote to a Mr Struan Stevenson MEP. In this letter, Mrs S. submitted that, by refusing to submit to an audit, IH had "excluded itself from the process" for signing the FPA. Mrs S. added the following remark: "Should Internationaler Hilfsfonds agree to submit to an audit on its premises, ECHO will reconsider its application, and only under these circumstances will [it] be able to decide on the NGO's eligibility."

1.5 In 2006, IH complained to the Ombudsman. Its first complaint (1155/2006/GG) was rejected on the basis of Article 195 of the EC Treaty, when it emerged that IH had subsequently submitted its case to the Community courts.

1.6 After this action had been withdrawn, IH submitted a second complaint (1434/2006/GG). The Ombudsman decided to open an inquiry into this complaint.

However, the Ombudsman considered that it was neither feasible nor practicable to try and deal with all the issues that IH had raised in its complaint, some of which appeared to concern other inquiries that were either pending or had already been concluded.

In the Ombudsman's view, the core of IH's case could be summarised as follows:

The complainant in essence alleges that it emerges from ECHO's internal note of 11 September 2001 that the Commission decided, without hearing the complainant, to blacklist it on the grounds that it had raised allegations of maladministration against the Commission. In the complainant's view, the Commission thereby acted in a discriminatory, disproportionate, abusive and unfair way. The complainant further alleges that, by omitting to disclose this decision, the Commission deceived both the member of the European Parliament, to whom it had written on 6 November 2001, and the European Ombudsman.

1.7 The Ombudsman, therefore, asked the Commission for an opinion on these allegations.

1.8 In its opinion, the Commission informed the Ombudsman that IH had obtained a copy of the note of 11 September 2001 already in January 2002. In its observations, IH confirmed this fact. In view of these facts, the Ombudsman considered that IH's complaint needed to be rejected, since it had thus been established that IH had failed to comply with Article 2(4) of the Ombudsman's Statute, according to which a complaint "shall be made within two years of the date on which the facts on which it is based came to the attention of the person lodging the complaint".

1.9 However, given the seriousness of the allegations raised by the complainant the Ombudsman considered that these allegations should be examined. He, therefore, opened the present own-initiative inquiry.

1.10 In its opinion on complaint 1434/2006/GG, the Commission, whilst taking the view that the complaint was inadmissible, had also set out its views as regards the substance of IH's allegations. IH had been given, and made use of, the possibility to make observations on this opinion. The Ombudsman, therefore, considered that there was no need to ask the Commission for a further opinion within the framework of the present own-initiative inquiry. Instead, the results of the inquiry into complaint 1434/2006/GG could directly be used for the purposes of the present own-initiative inquiry.

1.11 In its observations on the Commission's opinion in case 1434/2006/GG, IH raised a further allegation concerning ECHO's alleged failure to grant proper access to its file. The Ombudsman considers that it is neither necessary nor justified to examine this further allegation in the present own-initiative inquiry. The present inquiry thus deals exclusively with the allegations on which the Commission was asked to comment in case 1434/2006/GG.

2 The alleged blacklisting of IH by the Commission

2.1 IH in essence alleged that it emerged from ECHO's internal note of 11 September 2001 that the Commission had decided, without hearing IH, to blacklist it on the grounds that it had raised allegations of maladministration against the Commission. In IH's view, the Commission thereby acted in a discriminatory, disproportionate, abusive and unfair way.

2.2 In its opinion, the Commission stressed that it was important to clarify the nature of the note of 11 September 2001 and to interpret it in the light of its factual and temporal context. The Commission submitted that the note of 11 September 2001 was an internal document informing other heads of unit at ECHO of the grounds for concern regarding IH that had been expressed at a given moment in time. It added that ECHO's mandate was primarily to save and preserve lives through the most reliable implementing partners. Information from other Commission services and ECHO itself casting doubt on the financial and operational capacities of a given NGO could not be withheld from other units. The Commission further submitted that the regular exchange of information within its services had to be seen as one mechanism assuring sound financial management and financial risk control. In view of the above, the Commission took the view that the note of 11 September 2001 could not be presented as a Commission decision or an order to other services of ECHO to blacklist IH, on the grounds that it had raised allegations of maladministration against the Commission.

The Commission also submitted that IH could not substantiate any allegation of blacklisting, as it had not submitted any project proposal to ECHO since June 1996. Moreover, IH had not applied to sign the new FPA in 2004, after the expiry of the previous FPA in 2003.

The Commission considered that in these circumstances, H had failed to explain how the Commission could have acted in a discriminatory, disproportionate, abusive and unfair way towards it.

2.3 In its observations, IH submitted that since the hierarchical structure of ECHO did not allow Mrs S. to become active of her own volition, it was clear that the note of 11 September 2001 had been preceded by a decision to boycott IH that had been adopted by the Directors or the Director-General of ECHO. In IH's view, it was impossible to assume that Mrs S. might have taken a decision of such importance on her own and without the agreement of her superiors.

2.4 Good administrative practice requires that Community institutions and bodies abstain from discrimination, ensure that the measures they take are proportional to the aim pursued, avoid abusing their powers and act fairly (see Articles 5, 6, 7 and 11 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour(4)).

2.5 The Ombudsman considers that it is indeed necessary, as the Commission has suggested, to examine the nature and the context of the note of 11 September 2001.

2.6 From an examination of this note, it emerges that its author intended to inform other units of ECHO of certain concerns in relation to IH. The Ombudsman agrees that the Commission's services must be able to exchange information that might be relevant for the work they carry out between themselves. In the Ombudsman's view, Mrs S. was, therefore, entitled to forward to other units within ECHO information she had received (from AIDCO) or which she already possessed (as regards IH's application to sign the FPA). In its observations, IH has submitted that the information set out in the relevant note was not correct. The Ombudsman considers, however, that there is no need for him to deal with this issue in the present inquiry. Indeed, it is clear that ECHO's note of 11 September 2001 does not limit itself to the provision of information.

2.7 In the final paragraph of the relevant note, Mrs S. informed the addressees of the note that she "would be grateful if you would ensure that your staff is informed of the situation so that we can avoid any involvement with this NGO." It is clear that the author of the relevant note expected its addressees to take certain action and that this action should have as its result that ECHO could avoid "any involvement" with IH. In the Ombudsman's view, it cannot thus be seriously argued that the note of 11 September 2001 merely informed other services of ECHO of certain facts.

2.8 In IH's view, the relevant passage constitutes a "decision" taken by the Commission. The Ombudsman notes that the Commission has objected to this interpretation and has submitted that the note can be interpreted neither as a decision nor as an order to other services of ECHO. It is true that, upon a literal reading, the relevant note does not refer to any decision taken by the Commission or any instruction given or to be given to other units of ECHO. However, it is abundantly clear that the result that the author of the note wished to achieve was that the units to which her note was addressed would not enter into any engagements with IH. It is further clear that the author of the note intended to adopt the same approach as regards her own unit. In the Ombudsman's view, it is thus clear that this note did indeed serve the purpose of blacklisting IH in so far as ECHO was concerned.

2.9 It is true that, from a legal point of view, the author of the note, a head of one of ECHO's units, would not appear to have had the power to impose her views on the heads of ECHO's other units to whom she addressed her note. However, the Ombudsman considers that there is no need to speculate, as IH has done in its observations, about any possible decisions by the author's hierarchical superiors that may or may not have preceded this note. The fact remains that the head of one of ECHO's units clearly informed the heads of other units of ECHO that she wished to see IH to be effectively blacklisted and that she obviously expected her request to that effect to be complied with by the addressees of her note. The Ombudsman further notes that the Commission has not referred to any objections that might have been raised by the addressees of the note or by the author's hierarchical superiors. On the contrary, the Commission's opinion clearly suggests that the Commission continues to believe that Mrs S. acted correctly by sending this note to her colleagues at ECHO.

2.10 The Ombudsman notes that the Commission has not submitted that the 'problems' with IH to which the note of 11 September 2001 referred would have entitled it to blacklist IH. It should be noted that these problems are effectively limited to a dispute concerning a specific contract concluded with IH by AIDCO and a difference of opinion as regards the appropriateness of an audit proposed by ECHO. In the Ombudsman's view, there is nothing to suggest that these facts could have entitled ECHO to refrain from any involvement with IH in the future.

2.11 In addition to that, it should be noted that the decisive final paragraph of the note of 11 September 2001 is immediately preceded by a paragraph referring to the fact that IH had recently raised allegations of maladministration against ECHO. The content and the structure of the note of 11 September 2001 would appear to indicate that these allegations were a central factor leading Mrs S. to ask her colleagues to inform their units about IH, so as to enable ECHO to "avoid any involvement with this NGO". However, the Ombudsman cannot accept that a Community institution or body disadvantages an NGO simply on the grounds that it has complained about maladministration. Besides, it should not be forgotten that the Ombudsman's inquiries into ECHO's handling of IH's application to sign the FPA have confirmed that there were indeed serious instances of maladministration.

2.12 As regards the Commission's argument that IH had not proven that it had been blacklisted, since it had not submitted any project proposals to ECHO since 1996, the Ombudsman finds it necessary to state that he finds this argument surprising and that he considers that it completely misses the point. It emerges clearly from the note of 11 September 2001 that Mrs S. did not wish ECHO to have any involvement with IH and that she requested the heads of other units of ECHO to act accordingly. In such circumstances, it is, therefore, extremely difficult to imagine how any project proposals that would have been submitted by IH could have been successful.

2.13 In view of the above, the Ombudsman considers that ECHO has failed to comply with the duty to refrain from discrimination, since it blacklisted IH mainly or at least also because of the fact that it had raised allegations of maladministration against the Commission. He further considers that ECHO resorted to a measure that was clearly disproportionate to any concerns it might have had as regards IH. The Ombudsman also considers that ECHO behaved unfairly in acting as it did. Finally, the Ombudsman cannot but conclude that ECHO abused its powers in the present case by blacklisting an NGO without good cause.

3 The alleged deception of an MEP and of the Ombudsman

3.1 IH alleged that, by omitting to disclose its decision to blacklist it, the Commission deceived both the member of the European Parliament, to whom it had written on 6 November 2001, and the European Ombudsman.

3.2 In its opinion, the Commission submitted that IH's allegation was not a fact but a personal interpretation of the facts. It added that this was a very serious and grave allegation not only against the Commission but also against individual civil servants. The Commission submitted that, in light of the nature and content of the note of 11 September 2001, ECHO had not considered that it was relevant for the reply that was sent to the MEP. It added that it could not, therefore, agree with IH's allegation that it had deceived the MEP, to whom it had written on 6 November 2001, and the Ombudsman.

3.3 The Ombudsman considers that he can be brief as regards this allegation. Mrs S.'s letter to Mr Stevenson MEP of 6 November 2001 clearly stated that it would reconsider IH's application to sign the FPA on the sole condition that IH accepted to submit to an audit. However, the very same person had made it clear only two months previously, in her note of 11 September 2001, that she wished ECHO not to have "any involvement with this NGO". It is, therefore, extremely difficult to see how any new application by IH could have been successful, even if the latter had agreed to an audit. The Commission has not submitted or established that Mrs S. had changed her mind or that ECHO had rejected the approach set out in her note of 11 September 2001 by the time the letter to Mr Stevenson MEP was sent on 6 November 2001. ECHO's letter of 6 November 2001 thus created the impression that the absence of an audit was the only possible problem that prevented an examination of a new application by IH, without disclosing the fact that the sender of the letter had already made it clear that she did not wish ECHO to get involved with this NGO at all.

3.4 In these circumstances, the Ombudsman finds himself compelled to conclude that the letter of 6 November 2001 was indeed misleading and prone to deceive the MEP concerned.

3.5 As regards the second part of IH's allegation, regard should be had to the fact that the Ombudsman's inquiries in previous cases concerned the handling of IH's application to sign the FPA until the moment when this application was rejected by ECHO on 19 July 2001. Although it would clearly have been useful if the Ombudsman had had knowledge of the note of 11 September 2001 in these inquiries, the Ombudsman considers that there is not enough evidence to allow him to arrive at the conclusion that ECHO deceived him as regards this note.

4 Conclusion

4.1 In view of his inquiries into the present case, the Ombudsman arrives at the conclusion that the Commission has committed serious instances of maladministration both as regards ECHO's note of 11 September 2001 and ECHO's letter to Mr Stevenson MEP of 6 November 2001.

4.2 In its original complaint and in its observations, IH did not raise any precise claims. In the Ombudsman's view, however, a formal apology to both IH and the MEP concerned is the minimum that can be expected from the Commission in such circumstances. The Ombudsman considers, however, that the Commission should also consider whether any further action is necessary to prevent such instances of maladministration from arising in the future.

4.3 In view of the above, the Ombudsman makes the following draft recommendation to the Commission, in accordance with Article 3(6) of the Statute of the Ombudsman:

The draft recommendation

The Commission should apologize, both to IH and to Mr Struan Stevenson MEP, for the serious instances of maladministration that it committed as regards ECHO's internal note of 11 September 2001 and ECHO's letter to the MEP of 6 November 2001. It should also consider whether any further action is necessary to prevent such instances of maladministration from arising in the future.

The Commission and IH will be informed of this draft recommendation. A further copy of this draft recommendation will be sent to Mr Struan Stevenson MEP. In accordance with Article 3 (6) of the Statute of the Ombudsman, the Commission shall send a detailed opinion by 15 February 2008. The detailed opinion could consist of the acceptance of the Ombudsman's decision and a description of the measures taken to implement the draft recommendation.

Strasbourg, 14 November 2007

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) Decision 94/262 of 9 March 1994 of the European Parliament on the Regulations and General Conditions Governing the Performance of the Ombudsman’s Duties, OJ 1994 L 113, p. 15.

(2) Both decisions and the draft recommendation are available on the Ombudsman's website (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu).

(3) Both decisions and the draft recommendation are available on the Ombudsman's website (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu).

(4) The text of the Code is available on the Ombudsman's website (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu).