Dear Mr C.,
Dear Mr G.,
On 6 July 1999 you lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman against the European Commission, in your capacity as attorney of the "Terminal Rinfuse Genova s.p.a.". It concerned the Commission's handling of a complaint that you had introduced in February 1996.
On 29 July 1999, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion translated into Italian on 16 November 1999 and I forwarded it to you on 22 November 1999 with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. On 21 December 1999, I received your observations on the Commission's opinion.
I am writing now to let you know the result of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

Terminal Rinfuse Genova s.p.a. (hereinafter TRG) acts as a terminal operator in the port of Savona (Itlay) where it loads and unloads coal and solid bulk, while similar services are carried out by another company, Funiviaria Alto Tirreno s.p.a. (hereinafter Funiviaria), that also manages a cableway infrastructure to transport the coal and solid bulk to storage facilities outside the port.
On 8 February 1996, the complainants lodged a complaint with the European Commission, on behalf of TGR, in which they alleged that the Italian government had granted illegal State aid to Funiviaria, with the aim to cover certain losses of the company. They also expressed their concerns against the project of the Italian authorities to finance the building of a new terminal for the loading and unloading of large bulk goods in the port of Savona, because in their opinion this project would exclusively benefit Funiviaria.
The complainants requested the Commission to declare the decision of the Italian government to grant State aid to Funiviaria incompatible with Community law and to determine whether there were further plans to aid this company for the construction of a new terminal.
From February 1996 to July 1999, the complainants had kept a regular correspondence with the Commission services, submitting further information to the Commission underlining the urgency of a decision on their complaint.
In their complaint, the complainants asked for the Ombudsman's intervention to obtain a final decision by the Commission. They considered the period of time taken by the institution to examine the file to be excessively long.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion
The Commission's opinion on the complaint was in summary the following:
After a preliminary assessment of all the elements provided by the complainants, the Commission requested further information from the Italian government, concerning the alleged aid to cover losses of Funiviaria. The Commission also reminded the relevant authorities of the obligation to notify the Commission in advance under article 88(3) of the EC Treaty.
In June 1997 the Commission's services sent a reminder to the Italian government that responded by letter dated 11 June 1997. After this, several contacts between the Commission and both the complainants and the Italian authorities took place, including a meeting on 11 December 1997 and 29 May 1998.
On 28 July 1998, the Commission was informed by the Italian government about plans to sell Funiviaria. On the basis of this new element, the institution addressed an additional letter to the national authorities and asked to be informed about the project of a new terminal in the port of Savona. In the absence of reply, a reminder was sent on 13 January 1999.
Furthermore, in March 1999 the complainants demanded to be informed of the latest developments of the case. This request was promptly answered in a telephone conversation of 28 April 1999, in a letter of 30 April 1999 and in a meeting of 20 May 1999.
As concerns the fact that the Commission had not taken a final decision regarding the complaint lodged by the complainants in 1996, the institution recalled some procedural rules to be followed in State aid cases. After having received a complaint, the Commission write sto the Member State concerned to inform about the allegation and, in some cases, to request further information. In this case, due to the complexity of all the aspects involved, a thorough examination was necessary.
Finally, the Commission underlined that its services had regularly provided the complainants with clear and punctual explanations on the progress of the case, and kept them informed of the developments and the difficulties encountered during the examination.
The complainants' observations
In their observations on the Commission's opinion, the complainants pointed out that, in order to clarify some points of the institution's opinion, they had considered necessary to meet the officials which were dealing with the case. A meeting took place in the Commission premises in Brussels, on 6 December 1999. During the meeting, the officials informed the complainants that the decision drafted by the services of Directorate General VII -transports- had already been transmitted to Directorate General IV - competition- and to the legal services for the examination.
The complainants also thanked the Ombudsman for his effort in resolving the case.BR>

THE DECISION

1 The alleged failure of the Commission to properly handle a complaint
1.1 The complainants, which had lodged a complaint with the European Commission in February 1996, claimed that the institution had not properly dealt with it. They pointed out that the period of three years taken by that the Commission before deciding on their case should be considered as excessive and constitutes an instance of maladministration.
1.2 In its opinion the Commission has given a detailed explanation of the actions taken regarding the examination of the case. The institution stressed that its services had regularly provided the complainants with all explanations requested about the progress of their case. It also underlined that such a length of time to take a decision was due to the complexity of the case and to the several requests of information submitted to the Italian authorities.
1.3 Since from the complainants' observations it appeared that during the meeting of 6 December 1999 with the Commission's services they were informed that a decision had been drafted by Directorate General VII and forwarded to Directorate General IV and to the legal services for examination, the Ombudsman contacted the complainants to make sure that they were satisfied with the outcome of the inquiry.
1.4 The complainants confirmed the previous information and added that they had been informed by the Commission that on 22 December 1999 a final decision was taken and that it was sent to the competent services for translation, before being sent to the Italian authorities and subsequently communicated to the complainants. Furthermore, they thanked the Ombudsman for his effort to solve their case in a satisfactory way.
2 Conclusion
On the basis of the information provided by the complainants and the opinion submitted by the European Commission, it appears that the case has been settled by the Commission to the complainants' full satisfaction. 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