Dear Mr A.,

On 16 August 2001, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the alleged refusal by the European Parliament to provide you with information.

On 6 September 2001, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Parliament. The Parliament sent its opinion on 14 December 2001. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 11 January 2002. On 22 November and 4 December 2001, you sent me further letters.

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

THE COMPLAINT

In August 2001, the complainant lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman against the European Parliament. The complainant had written to the Parliament on 13 June 2001, requesting information in relation to his civil and social rights when residing in another Member State of the European Union. Since he did not receive a reply, he decided to go personally to the Parliament's premises in Luxembourg in July 2001. In Luxembourg he spoke briefly with a Parliament official over the phone. He also wrote more letters which he sent by mail and delivered personally to the Parliament. Despite this, no one at the Parliament was willing to receive him or speak with him. He was sent to different buildings and spent one week waiting at the reception.

In his complaint, the complainant alleged that the Parliament had not replied to the letters he sent asking for information on his civil and social rights, and that the Parliament had refused and was still refusing to speak to him in person at its premises in Luxembourg. He claimed that the requested information should be given to him.

THE INQUIRY

The Parliament's opinion

The complaint was sent to the Parliament for comments. In its opinion, the Parliament stated that the complainant has sent it a letter on 12 May 2001, asking for information about the European Court of Human Rights. The Parliament replied on 7 June 2001, explaining the role of the Court and providing him with material about the Court. On 13 June 2001, the complainant sent another letter to the Parliament asking for advice on his personal situation as German citizen residing in Portugal. The Parliament replied by letter of 4 July 2001 stating that his situation related to civil and criminal proceedings in Portugal and that the Parliament was therefore unable to intervene. Nevertheless, it provided the complainant with information as to his rights to travel and reside in another Member State of the European Union. The Parliament provided copies of its replies to the complainant.

Once the complainant had arrived in Luxembourg, a Parliament official had an extensive telephone conversation with the complainant in which he again was explained that the Parliament was not competent to intervene in his problems in Portugal. Since complete information had already been provided to the complainant, it was not deemed necessary to meet with him in person.

Against this background, the Parliament found the complaint to be unfounded.

The complainant's observations

The Parliament's opinion was forwarded to the complainant. In his observations, the complainant maintained his complaint. Moreover, he stated that he had been ordered to leave Luxembourg and had been sent to Germany. He also explained the problems he had faced in Portugal and expressed that he still wanted to reside in Portugal.

THE DECISION

1 Alleged refusal to provide information

1.1 The complainant alleged that the Parliament had not replied to the letters he sent asking for information on his civil and social rights, and that the Parliament had refused and was still refusing to speak to him in person at its premises in Luxembourg. He claimed that the requested information should be given to him.

1.2 The Parliament stated that it had replied to two letters from the complainant and further spoken to him over the phone. Since complete information had already been provided to the complainant, it had not been deemed necessary to meet with him in person.

1.3 The Ombudsman notes that the Parliament replied to the complainant's letters and that these replies were adequate. The problems the complainant was facing in Portugal, do not appear to be of a kind that could have been addressed or solved by the Parliament. The Ombudsman also notes that a Parliament official spoke with the complainant on the phone. Furthermore, after having provided the complainant with adequate information, it can not be considered that the Parliament broke any rule or principle when it did not meet with him in person at its premises in Luxembourg.

2 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the Parliament. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

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

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN