Strasbourg, 30 May 2005

Dear Dr. W.,

On 7 December 2004, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the European Commission's alleged failure to deal with a petition you had submitted to it on 18 May 2004.

On 21 December 2004, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission, asking for an opinion to be submitted by 31 March 2005. You were informed accordingly by letter sent the same day.

On 3 January 2005, I received a letter dated 1 January 2005 that had been sent to me by Mr Peter Briody and which referred to my letter to you of 21 December 2004. In his letter, Mr Briody submitted that complaints sent by German citizens to the European Court of Human Rights, the United Nations and the EU were sometimes intercepted. On 12 January 2005, I forwarded a copy of this letter to the Commission. Mr Briody was informed accordingly by letter sent the same day. On the same day, I also wrote to you in order to inform you.

In an e-mail sent on 1 April 2005, you expressed your astonishment at the fact that you had not yet received any further information regarding your complaint. In my reply sent on 12 April 2005, I pointed out that the Commission had been requested to submit its opinion by 31 March 2005, that my services had contacted the Commission after your e-mail of 1 April 2005 had been received and that the Commission had informed my Office that its opinion would be forwarded to me in the next few days. I also informed you that the opinion would be sent for your observations as soon as it arrived and that if the opinion should not be in German (the language of the complaint), a German translation would be forwarded to you subsequently as soon as I had received it.

A copy of my reply was sent to you by e-mail on 13 April 2005. In your reply sent by e-mail on 14 April 2005, you thanked me for this letter.

The Commission sent the French version of its opinion (dated 6 April 2005) on 13 April 2005, and I forwarded it to you on 15 April 2005 with an invitation to make observations. On 20 April 2005, the Commission sent me the German translation of its opinion, which I forwarded to you on 26 April 2005.

On 2 May 2005, you sent me your observations.

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

THE COMPLAINT

Background

The complainant is a German association of citizens who consider themselves victims of the German judicial system. On 18 May 2004, the complainant submitted a voluminous petition to the European Commission.

In a previous complaint submitted to the Ombudsman on 5 July 2004 (2128/2004/GG), the complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to confirm that it had received the above-mentioned petition. The Ombudsman's Office thereupon contacted the relevant service of the Commission. On 20 July 2004, the Commission forwarded to the Ombudsman a copy of a letter that it had sent to the complainant on 20 July 2004 and in which it thanked the complainant for its letter. The case was thus closed as having been settled by the Commission.

The present complaint

In its new complaint, the complainant basically alleged that the Commission had failed to deal with its petition of 18 May 2004.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion, the Commission made the following comments:

The Commission had carefully examined the petition that the complainant had addressed to it on 18 May 2004, by its e-mail of 27 June 2004 and by its complementary e-mail of 5 July 2004. In this petition, the complainant had expressed the view that the German judicial system did not work properly. The complainant had in particular submitted that the fact that a high number of persons had to be represented by lawyers deprived them of an effective access to justice and resulted in many people being judged "in absentia".

This examination had led the Commission to the conclusion that the petition did not have any link to Community law. The Commission was therefore unable to become active, given that its competencies were limited to cases of violations of fundamental rights within the framework of Community law.

The Commission had informed the complainant accordingly on 27 September 2004. The delay that had occurred had been due to the voluminous nature of the petition and to the time it had taken to prepare the translation necessary to enable the Commission to examine the petition and to reply to it. The Commission apologised for this delay.

The complainant's observations

In its observations on the Commission's opinion, the complainant made the following comments:

Unfortunately no German translation of the Commission's opinion had been provided. However, the complainant was entitled to a reply in German.

The complainant's request to exclude the "BRD" (the Federal Republic of Germany) from the EU on account of serious violations of fundamental principles had not been handled properly at all. On the contrary, dealing with this request had intentionally been delayed for more than a year.

The Commission's letter of 27 September 2004 had never been sent to the complainant. It had probably been produced subsequently and thus constituted a falsification. This was confirmed by the fact that the French original did not bear a date.

The Commission's position was also wrong in that the petition of 18 May 2004 had focused exclusively on the regular disregard of EU law, of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the case-law of the Community courts in Germany. The petition had also drawn attention to the fact that the "OMF-BRD" (the Federal Republic of Germany as an 'organised modality of rule by foreigners') was no state and could therefore not make EU citizens out of Germans. The complainant therefore objected to the imposition of a European Constitution as long as the BRD refused to respect the rule of law.

The complainant also wished to know whether its petition of 18 May 2004 had been translated into an official working language (English or French) that could be used as a reference for an action to be brought before the European Court of Justice.

THE DECISION

1 Alleged failure properly to handle petition

1.1 The complainant is a German association of citizens who consider themselves victims of the German judicial system. On 18 May 2004, the complainant submitted a voluminous petition to the European Commission. In its complaint to the Ombudsman lodged in December 2004, the complainant basically alleged that the Commission had failed to deal with its petition of 18 May 2004.

1.2 In its opinion, the Commission explained that it had carefully examined the petition that the complainant had addressed to it. It pointed out that in this petition, the complainant had expressed the view that the German judicial system did not work properly. The complainant had in particular submitted that the fact that a high number of persons had to be represented by a lawyer deprived them of an effective access to justice and resulted in many people being judged "in absentia". The Commission explained that its examination had led it to the conclusion that the petition did not have any link to Community law and that it was therefore unable to become active. It added that the complainant had been informed accordingly on 27 September 2004. The Commission submitted that the delay that had occurred had been due to the voluminous nature of the petition and to the time it had taken to prepare the translation necessary to enable the Commission to examine the petition and reply to it. It offered its apologies for this delay.

1.3 In its observations, the complainant claimed that no German translation of the Commission's opinion had been provided. It further submitted that its request to exclude the "BRD" (the Federal Republic of Germany) from the EU on account of serious violations of fundamental principles had not at all been handled properly. The complainant also alleged that the Commission's letter of 27 September 2004 had never been sent to it, that this letter had probably been produced subsequently and thus constituted a falsification. In support of this view, the complainant pointed out that the French original did not bear a date. The complainant also submitted that the Commission's position was wrong, given that its (the complainant's) petition of 18 May 2004 had focused exclusively on the consistent disregard of EU law, of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case-law of the Community courts in Germany. It further stated that it wished to know whether its petition of 18 May 2004 had been translated into an official working language (English or French).

1.4 The Ombudsman considers it useful to recall that by letter of 12 April 2005 he informed the complainant, in reply to the latter's e-mail of 1 April 2005, that the opinion would be sent for the complainant's observations as soon as it arrived and that if the opinion were not be in German (the language of the complaint), a German translation would be forwarded to the complainant subsequently as soon as the Ombudsman had received it. The Commission sent the French version of its opinion (dated 6 April 2005) on 13 April 2005, and the Ombudsman forwarded it to the complainant on 15 April 2005, in accordance with what he had announced in his letter of 12 April 2005. On 20 April 2005, the Commission sent the German translation of its opinion to the Ombudsman, which was forwarded to the complainant on 26 April 2005.

1.5 As regards the substance of the case, the Ombudsman notes that the Commission has taken the position that the complainant's petition of 18 May 2004 did not have any link to Community law and that it was therefore unable to become active. In the light of the information provided to him, the Ombudsman considers that this position appears to be reasonable. It is true that in its observations, the complainant submitted that its petition also concerned what it perceived to be a consistent disregard of EU law in Germany. However, the complainant has not provided any concrete evidence to establish this view.

1.6 In its observations, the complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to handle properly its request to exclude Germany from the EU. It should be noted that the Ombudsman has the power and the duty to examine instances of possible maladministration. However, the substance of this request concerns a political issue and would therefore not fall within the mandate of the Ombudsman.

1.7 As regards procedural aspects, the Ombudsman considers that the complainant has not established its allegation (raised in its observations) that the Commission's letter of 27 September 2004 had not in fact been sent to it. The relevant letter is both dated and signed and bears a number ("JAI/C3/AG D(2004) 8871"). The Ombudsman considers that there is nothing to suggest that this letter was produced subsequently and thus constituted a falsification. The French text that the Commission submitted to the Ombudsman together with this letter is a translation. It is therefore not surprising that this text was not signed.

1.8 The Ombudsman notes that the letter of 27 September 2004 was sent over four months after the Commission had received the petition of 18 May 2004 to which it replied. However, the Commission has explained that this delay was due to the voluminous nature of the petition and to the time it had taken to prepare the translation necessary to enable the Commission to examine the petition and reply to it. The Ombudsman further notes that the Commission has apologised for this delay. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that there are no grounds for further inquiries into this aspect of the case.

1.9 As regards the complainant's question (which was first raised in the complainant's observations) whether its petition of 18 May 2004 had been translated by the Commission into an official working language (English or French), the Ombudsman considers that this question (which had not been raised in the original complaint) constitutes a request for information. However, the Ombudsman does not have the information the complainant is looking for. If, however, the complainant should wish to receive a reply to its question, it could turn to the Commission.

2 Conclusion

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

The President of the European Commission will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS