Dear Mr and Mrs X,

You recently submitted a complaint against the European Commission to the European Ombudsman about how the Commission replied to your letters of 10, 12 and 13 December 2022.

In your letters to the Commission, you argued that Austria has infringed the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter)[1], by violating your right to property.

In your complaint to the Ombudsman, you argue that the Commission was wrong in finding that the Charter is not applicable in your specific case. You consider that the Commission did not provide any substantive reasoning in reply to the arguments raised in your letters.

I understand from your complaint to the Ombudsman that you consider that the position the Commission took in its reply is not well-founded and that the Commission failed to provide a substantive reply to the arguments you raised.

The Commission enjoys wide discretion in deciding whether and when to commence an infringement procedure.[2] Furthermore, the Commission is not obliged to engage with a complainant on every issue or argument raised on the alleged issue of non-compliance. Rather, it is sufficient that the Commission explains clearly why it has taken the position it has taken, which it has done in this case.

Regarding the substance of a complaint, the Ombudsman may only intervene (by asking the Commission to look at the complaint again) in case there is an indication that the Commission was manifestly wrong in its presentation of the facts or of law.

In this case, there is no indication that the Commission (manifestly) misinterpreted the facts or the law. The Commission confirmed the conclusion it had made in its earlier reply of 8 December 2022. In this reply, it correctly stated that, in accordance with article 51, the Charter applies to Member States only when they are implementing EU law.

Therefore, after careful analysis of all the information you provided with your complaint, we have decided to close the inquiry with the following conclusion:

There was no maladministration by European Commission.

Yours sincerely,

Tina Nilsson
Head of the Case-handling Unit

Strasbourg, 11/05/2023

 

[1] Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12012P%2FTXT.

[2] Judgment of the Court of 14 February 1989, Starfruit v Commission, case 247/87, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61987CJ0247