Dear Mr W.,

On 12 June 2001 you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning alleged lack of reply to correspondence sent on 5 October 2000, 20 December 2000, 5 February 2001, 22 March 2001 and 19 April 2001.

On 30 August 2001, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 26 November 2001 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. On 17 January 2002, I received your observations on the Commission's opinion.

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

THE COMPLAINT

This complaint 1054/2001/BB relates to a previous admissible complaint 723/98/BB made by the complainant on 7 July 1998 about alleged lack or refusal of information and failure to reply to correspondence by the European Commission. The complaint 723/98/BB resulted in a critical remark against the Commission for not replying in due time to the correspondence.

On 19 April 2001, the complainant made a new complaint to the European Ombudsman (complaint 602/2001/BB). That complaint was closed under Article 2.3 of the Statute of the Ombudsman, as it was unclear whether the complaint was against the Finnish authorities or against the European Commission.

On 12 June 2001, the complainant sent a renewed complaint 1054/2001/BB to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission concerning the following correspondence:

On 5 October 2000, the complainant wrote to the European Commission DG Taxation and Customs Union regarding import restrictions of alcohol to Finland, alleging that the Finnish legislation was not in conformity with the law of the European Communities and asking the Commission to intervene in the matter.

On 20 December 2000, the complainant sent a letter to the European Commission DG Taxation and Customs Union, complaining about alleged failure to gradually liberalise import restrictions of alcohol beverages in Finland. He also alleged that the Finnish legislation prohibiting beverages of 96% ethyl alcohol was not in conformity with the law of the European Union.

On 5 February 2001, the complainant wrote to the European Commission DG Taxation and Customs Union, complaining that the Finnish authorities had violated Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 and the Treaty of the European Union by prohibiting imports of alcohol beverages of over 80% alcohol in Finland. He also complained about the import quotas regarding imports of alcohol from other Community member states to Finland, and alleged inaction by the Commission in this regard.

On 22 March 2001, the complainant sent a letter to the European Commission DG Taxation and Customs Union asking for reply to his previous correspondence.

On 19 April 2001, the complainant wrote to the European Commission DG Taxation and Customs Union informing that, as a result of lack of reply to his previous correspondence, he would take the matter to the European Ombudsman.

The complainant alleges lack of reply to correspondence sent on 5 October 2000, 20 December 2000, 5 February 2001, 22 March 2001 and 19 April 2001.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

The Commission in its opinion made, in summary, the following points:

The Commission pointed out that the letters sent by the complainant could not be analysed separately from each other but all correspondence must be taken into account when assessing whether the Commission has followed good administrative behaviour in replying to the correspondence.

The Commission emphasised that all correspondence by the complainant essentially concerned the same question, i.e. perceived failure by Finland to comply with the obligation under Council Directive 96/99/EC to progressively remove the restrictions on quantity of certain alcoholic drinks brought into its territory(1). According to the Commission, the complainant in almost all his letters repeated this allegation. Further, the complainant repeatedly asked the Commission to take action against Finland in this matter.

To the letter of 5 October 2000 the Commission replied in 13 December 2000 together with another letter the complainant had sent to it on 7 December 2000.

The Commission did not reply to the letter by the complainant dated 20 December 2000.

As to the letter of 5 February 2001, the DG Internal Markets registered the letter as a complaint after first asking for further information from the complainant by a letter dated 26 March 2001. Further, the Commission confirmed on 12 July 2001 that the complainant's letter was registered as a complaint.

The Commission did not reply separately to the letter of 22 March 2001 in which the complainant asked for a reply to his previous correspondence.

The Commission DG Taxation and Customs Union, replied on 18 June 2001 to the complainant's letter dated 19 April 2001, in which the Commission summarised and closed the correspondence with the complainant.

The Commission pointed out that in 1999-2000 it had received from the complainant three other letters, which were not subject of the present complaint, to all of which it had replied.

The Commission considered that it had replied to this question already in its first letter of 22 June 1999 to the complainant.

As the complainant continued sending letters, the Commission DG Taxation and Customs Union sent yet another reply to the complainant on 18 June 2001. In this letter, which was signed by the Director-General Vanden Abeele, the Commission both summarised and closed the correspondence with the complainant. In the reply the Commission also presented its position on the subject matter in a clear and exhaustive manner.

As to the question concerning prohibition of more than 80% alcoholic drinks in Finland, the complainant had been contacted on 26 March 2001 for further information and the matter had been handed to the DG Internal Market. The complainant was sent an acknowledgement that his complaint had been registered on 5 February 2001.

As a conclusion, the Commission argued that its behaviour concerning the correspondence with the complainant was in conformity with the rules of good administrative behaviour.

The complainant's observations

The complainant maintained his complaint stating that he had not received any reply from the Commission to his last letters, that he had not received clear replies to his questions and that, therefore, the Commission had not followed the principles of good administration. He also disagreed with the Commission on the procedure of registration of his letter as a complaint concerning the prohibition of alcoholic drinks of more than 80% in Finland.

THE DECISION

1 Alleged lack of reply to correspondence

1.1 The complainant alleges that the Commission has failed to reply to his correspondence sent on 5 October 2000, 20 December 2000, 5 February 2001, 22 March 2001 and 19 April 2001, in which he complained about perceived breaches of Community law by the Finnish authorities as well as inaction by the European Commission.

1.2 Principles of good administrative behaviour require that a citizen who writes to the Commission receives a reply within a reasonable time. The Commission DG Taxation and Customs Union replied to the complainant's letters on 13 December 2000 26 March 2001 and 18 June 2001. Thus all correspondence was replied to within a period of 1-3 months, including the letters dated 20 December 2000 and 22 March 2001, which were not replied to separately. Further, as to the complaint to the Commission concerning the prohibition of more than 80% alcoholic drinks in Finland, the Commission had also requested further information from the complainant on 26 March 2001 and sent him an acknowledgement letter on 12 July 2001 confirming that his complaint had been registered. Furthermore, in its reply of 18 June 2001 to the complainant's last letter, the Commission summarised and closed the correspondence with the complainant.

1.3 The Ombudsman notes that Commission has repeatedly presented its position on the subject matter in its replies to the complainant, including the reply dated 18 June 2001 to the complainant's last letter. The fact that the substance of replies, i.e. the Commission's position on the subject matter, does not seem to satisfy the complainant does not undermine this. It thus appears that the Commission has replied in substance to the complainant's correspondence. Therefore, there appears to be no instance of maladministration by the Commission.

2 Conclusion

On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, it appears that there is no instance of maladministration. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN

---

(1) Council Directive 96/99/EC of 30 December 1996 amending Directive 92/12/EEC on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (Official Journal L 008, 11/01/1997 P. 0012 - 0013)