Strasbourg, 27 November 2006

Dear Mr L.,

On 11 May 2006, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Parliament concerning its alleged refusal to send you a copy of an article which appeared on the "EP Newshound" related to the political situation in Spain.

On 8 June 2006, I forwarded the complaint to the President of Parliament. Parliament sent the English version of its opinion on 11 October 2006 and the French translation of it on 31 October 2006. On the same day, I forwarded Parliament’s opinion to you with an invitation to make observations before 30 November 2006.

Given that, in its opinion, Parliament stated that the document had been forwarded directly to you, my services contacted you by telephone on 9 November 2006 in order to ascertain whether you had received a copy of the article published in the "EP Newshound" to which you had requested access. You informed my services that you had received no copy by that date. You confirmed this information by e-mail of 13 November 2006.

By e-mail of 20 November 2006, you informed me that you had finally received a copy of the article which appeared on the "EP Newshound" and to which you had requested access.

On 21 November 2006, my services contacted you by telephone in order to ascertain whether you were satisfied with Parliament's reply. You informed my services that this was the case. By e-mail of 22 November 2006, you sent me a copy of the relevant document.

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 were, in summary, as follows:

On 4 March 2006, an article related to the political situation in Spain, more particularly to the activities of a "criminal gang", and the political, economic, social and national security situation of Spain within the European Union, appeared on the website of the "EP Newshound", the internal on-line weekly newsletter of the European Parliament.

After having been informed by his colleagues of the relevant article, the complainant, a Parliament official, tried to have access to it on Parliament's Intranet website. However, the article had, in the meantime, been withdrawn. In the complainant’s view, the article was suddenly withdrawn from the Intranet without having given all the users the opportunity to read it. The complainant considered that the article had already been available to many MEPs and Parliament officials.

By e-mail of 6 April 2006, the complainant requested the service responsible for the "EP Newshound" to send him a copy of the relevant article. On the same day, the relevant service informed the complainant that, given that the article had been withdrawn and cancelled due to "popular reactions", his request could not be granted. In a further e-mail of the same day, the complainant reiterated his request to be given a copy of the article. The relevant service replied on the same day that the complainant had to address himself to the Director-General of Parliament's Directorate-General for Personnel ("DG Personnel"). The complainant followed this advice.

On 4 May 2006, the Director-General of DG Personnel replied to the complainant that the relevant article had been briefly published on the "EP Newshound" website but that he had considered it appropriate to ask for the withdrawal of the article from the electronic publications. He concluded that it did not appear to him useful to send a copy of this article to the complainant.

In his complaint to the European Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that Parliament’s refusal to send him a copy of the article published in the "EP Newshound" had been unfair and discriminatory. He further alleged that Parliament’s refusal to send him a copy of the article published in the "EP Newshound" constituted a failure to give information.

The complainant claimed that Parliament should give him access to the article. He further claimed that Parliament should allow him to exercise his right to make observations on the substance of the article.

THE INQUIRY

Parliament's opinion

In its opinion of 11 October 2006, Parliament informed the Ombudsman that it had decided to grant access to the requested document and to forward it directly to the complainant.

The complainant's observations

By e-mail of 20 November 2006, the complainant informed the Ombudsman that he had received a copy of the article which appeared on the "EP Newshound" and to which he had requested access.

On 21 November 2006, the Ombudsman's services contacted the complainant by telephone in order to ascertain whether he was satisfied with Parliament's reply. The complainant informed the Ombudsman’s services that he considered the complaint to have been settled and thanked the Ombudsman for his intervention.

THE DECISION

1 The complainant’s allegations and claims

1.1 On 4 March 2006, an article related to the political situation in Spain appeared on the "EP Newshound", the internal on-line weekly newsletter of the European Parliament. After having been informed by his colleagues of the relevant article, the complainant, a Parliament official, tried to have access to it on Parliament's Intranet website. However, the article had, in the meantime, been withdrawn. By e-mail of 6 April 2006, the complainant requested the service responsible for the "EP Newshound" to send him a copy of the relevant article. On the same day, the relevant service informed the complainant that, given that the article had been withdrawn and cancelled due to "popular reactions", his request could not be granted.

In his complaint to the European Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that Parliament’s refusal to send him a copy of the article which appeared on the "EP Newshound" had been unfair and discriminatory. He further alleged that Parliament’s refusal to provide him with a copy of the article constituted a failure to give information. The complainant claimed that Parliament should give him access to the article. He further claimed that Parliament should allow him to exercise his right to make observations on the substance of the article.

1.2 In its opinion of 11 October 2006, Parliament informed the Ombudsman that it had decided to grant access to the requested document and to forward it directly to the complainant.

1.3 By e-mail of 20 November 2006, the complainant informed the Ombudsman that he had received a copy of the article which appeared on the "EP Newshound" and to which he had requested access. On 21 November 2006, the Ombudsman's services contacted the complainant by telephone in order to ascertain whether he was satisfied with Parliament's reply. The complainant informed the Ombudsman’s services that he considered the complaint to have been settled and thanked the Ombudsman for his intervention.

2 Conclusion

It appears from Parliament’s opinion and the complainant's comments of 21 November 2006 made on the occasion of the telephone conversation with the Ombudsman’s services, that Parliament has taken steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied the complainant. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The President of Parliament will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS