Dear Mr S.,
On 16 July 1997, you made a complaint on behalf of the Dachverband für Natur- und Umweltschutz in Südtirol to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission. You alleged that the Commission did not deal properly with the complaints you made to it. In these complaints, you put forward that the authorities of the Autonome Provinz Bozen failed to comply with Community law.
On 6 October 1997, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 20 February 1998 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations which I received on 21 April 1998.
I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.
To avoid misunderstanding, it is important to recall that the EC Treaty empowers the European Ombudsman to inquire into possible instances of maladministration only in the activities of Community institutions and bodies. The Statute of the European Ombudsman specifically provides that no action by any other authority or person may be subject of a complaint to the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman's inquiries into your complaint were therefore directed towards examining whether there had been maladministration in the activities of the European Commission.

THE COMPLAINT

In 1996, the complainant made 3 complaints to the Commission.
- The first complaint of 22 March 1996 alleged lack of environmental assessment for a methane gas pipeline project between Roverè della Luna and Bozen, and thus a breach of Directive 85/337.
- The second complaint of 13 November 1996 alleged insufficient implementation of Council Directive 92/50 on the coordination of distribution of public contracts in relation to the gas pipeline project.
- The third complaint of 27 February 1996 concerned the law of the Autonome Provinz Bozen on subsidies for the construction and modernisation of funiculars, cable cars and similar installations. It was alleged that the law was contrary to Community law.
The complainant alleged that these complaints were not properly dealt with by the Commission, and in particular, that the Commission gave no information on the processing of the complaints.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion
In summary, the Commission made the following points:
The first complaint had two points, a concrete and a more general one. The first point concerned a gas pipeline project between Roverè della Luna and Bozen approved by Autonome Provinz Bozen. It was claimed that the environmental impact assessment (EIA) carried out was incomplete and that it lacked publicity.
In reply to the Commission's request for information, the Italian authorities stated that, since the complete project had been deposited at the offices of the town councils concerned and at the competent offices of the Provinz Bozen, the opportunity of scrutinising the documents regarding the pipeline project had in fact been given. The respective deposit notice had been published in two different provincial newspapers. The Italian authorities therefore considered that the opportunity for consulting the deposited documents had been given to citizens. The observations and comments made by associations and individual citizens has been taken into consideration by the Committee in charge of the environmental impact assessment (EIA-Committee). Furthermore, the Italian authorities stated that direct and indirect effects of the project on ecosystems and landscapes had been identified, described and assessed, and that the best environmental solution had also been considered.
At a meeting in Brussels, the Commission services informed the complainant about the above response of the Italian authorities. The complainant was also informed that the Commission intended to file the case as it was considered that this response which was adequately supported by transmitted documents, was completely satisfactory and well demonstrated the absence of infringements to Community law. The complainant was requested to submit new factual elements if he wished the matter reconsidered before the closing of the case.
The more general point of the complaint concerned the lack of compliance with Community law of the legislation of the Autonome Provinz Bozen on EIA. It was pointed out to the complainant at a meeting that an infringement procedure was underway against Italy concerning the general legislation of Autonome Provinz Bozen on EIA, regarding exactly the points highlighted by the complainant. It was explained to the complainant that the procedure being pursued already covered his claims, and the complainant was requested to provide further information if he so wished. By letter of 20 January 1997, the complainant repeated his earlier submission without adding new elements.
For the above reasons and in the absence of new elements provided by the complainant, the Commission considered that his issue was satisfactorily explained and decided to file the first complaint. The complainant has been informed of this decision.
As regards the second complaint, in which the complainant claimed incorrect application of Directive 92/50 by the Autonome Provinz Bozen, the Commission Services decided not to register it as a complaint as the lack of specific elements regarding the public contracts aspect did not reveal a prima facie case of a breach of the relevant legislation. The Commission stated that its services continued to keep in touch with the complainant and met with a representative of the association in December 1996 in Brussels. During this meeting, they explained their point of view on the subject, inviting the representative to provide new elements because the available information did not allow the Commission to start infringement proceedings. It has been well clarified that unless new elements were provided, the case would continue to be treated as not disclosing a breach of Community law.
As regards the third complaint, the complainant claimed that the law on the promotion of funiculars of the Autonome Provinz Bozen infringed the Community competition law. The law allows for a support of funiculars and similar installations. The complainant alleged that the Autonome Provinz Bozen would subsidise these installations detrimental to the environment with an aid intensity which was considerably higher that those granted for environmental protection measures.
By letter of 21 June 1996, the DG IV asked the complainant to provide further information which he sent on 13 November 1996. Furthermore, the complainant was kept informed about the correspondence the Commission had with the Italian authorities. A meeting was held on 17 December 1996, during which the complainant was informed that DG IV was awaiting the answer of the Italian authorities. Furthermore, he was informed that the Commission intended to assess the promotion of funiculars and similar installations in general under state aid rules. By letter of 21 January 1997, the Italian Authorities provided further information on the case. The Commission services have carefully studied the case. On the basis of this complaint and others, they started a general investigation in the field of funiculars and similar installations. The complainant will be informed on the findings of this investigation.
The complainant's observations
In his observations, the complainant maintained his complaint.

THE DECISION

1 Failure of the Commission to investigate properly and to inform the complainant adequately
1.1 The question is whether the Commission's dealing with the complaints has been adequate.
1.2 As concerns the first complaint on the gas pipeline project between Roverè della Luna and Bozen, it appears that the Commission registered the complaint properly and addressed a request for information to the relevant Italian authorities. The complainant was provided with the statement of the Italian authorities on the issue, and he was given the opportunity to comment on it during a meeting with the Commission Services of DG XI. Before closing the case, the complainant was requested to submit new factual elements if he wished to have the matter reconsidered. It appears therefore that the Commission has adequately dealt with this complaint.
1.3 As concerns that second complaint, about the incorrect application of Directive 92/50/EEC on the coordination of procedures for the award of public contracts in reference to the above mentioned gas pipeline project, it appears that the Commission investigated the matter and decided not to register the complaint. The Commission services met with the complainant and explained their point of view to a representative of the complainant and invited him to provide new elements. It was made clear to the complainant that unless there are new elements the complaint file would be closed. It appears therefore that the Commission dealt with this complaint in accordance with its own set rules.
1.4 As regards the third complaint, which concerned the law of Autonome Provinz Bozen on the promotion of funiculars and similar installations, it appears that the complainant was asked by the Commission to provide further information on the subject. In addition to this, the Commission requested information from the Italian authorities. In a meeting held on 17 December 1996, a representative of the complainant was informed about the proceedings. It appears that a general investigation on the matter has been initiated by the Commission and that the complainant will be informed of its result. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds that there appears to be no evidence that the Commission has dealt inadequately with the complaints mentioned or that the complainant was not sufficiently informed about the proceedings.
1.5 It appears therefore that the Commission has acted so that the complainant has enjoyed the procedural possibilities of a registered complainant.
2 Conclusion
On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Commission. The Ombudsman has therefore decided to close the case.
The President of the European Commission will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely
Jacob SÖDERMAN