Strasbourg, 28 January 2008

Dear Mr S.,

On 18 June 2006, you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission concerning the Commission's treatment of your submissions with regard to the "Bauernmarktscheune Stadtsteinach".

On 18 September 2006, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission. I informed you accordingly by letter of the same date, in which I also explained that the issues raised in your undated letters received by me on 4 and 9 August respectively, did not come under my mandate.

On 4 and 11 September 2006, you requested my support of your petition to amend the German code of criminal procedure. By letter of 30 September 2006, you requested my support of your petition to amend the German code of civil procedure. On 29 November 2006, I informed you that I was not entitled to seek to influence the activities of the national and European legislatures.

The Commission sent its opinion on 31 January 2007. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 24 February 2007.

On 3, 12 and 17 February 2007, you reiterated certain allegations made, asked for the opening of a new complaints procedure with regard to certain aspects of your case and sent supporting material.

By letters of 7 and 28 March and 24 April 2007, you submitted a number of annotated articles and documents. On 31 May, 21 June and 2 July you sent further information with regard to your case.

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 the subject of a complaint to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman's inquiries into your complaint have therefore been directed towards examining whether there has been maladministration in the activities of the Commission.

THE COMPLAINT

The relevant facts

The complaint relates to the running and financing of a property used for gastronomic purposes, the "Bauernmarktscheune Stadtsteinach" ("the Bauernmarktscheune"), in Stadtsteinach (northern Bavaria).

The complainant, a German national, apparently had bought a former industrial property in Stadtsteinach which he intended to use for gastronomic purposes. Due to allegedly excessive requirements imposed by the competent authorities, he appears to have gone bankrupt. In a number of communications with the European Commission's services, the complainant had drawn attention to allegedly bad hygienic conditions in the "Bauernmarktscheune Stadtsteinach", another gastronomic property, as well as to the alleged misallocation of Community funds with regard to this property.

By letter of 27 March 2003, the complainant drew the Commission's attention to an alleged subsidy fraud which, according to him, had been committed by installing new toilets for 100 000 German Marks in the Bauernmarktscheune. In a letter of 7 April 2003 to the Commission, the complainant(1) further pointed out that pesticides worth EUR 29 000 had been applied in the Bauernmarktscheune, which, according to the complainant, was an old barn in ruinous state due to mildew, worms and decay. The complainant explained that in spite of the poor condition of the barn, prepared food was being sold in the Bauernmarktscheune. Newspaper articles covering the application of pesticides in, as well as the overall poor state of, the Bauernmarktscheune were also brought to the Commission's attention. The complainant deplored the unequal treatment between, on the one hand, entrepreneurs who would have to face stringent requirements until their economic death, and, on the other, "black gastronomy", which functioned without any requirements. The complainant insinuated that the application of pesticides had been made possible by virtue of Community funding obtained by fraud.

On 27 May 2003, the Commission's Directorate-General ("DG") Health and Consumer Protection sent a letter to the complainant, outlining the modalities of the infringement procedure (Article 226 of the EC Treaty). In the same letter, the complainant was asked for clarification as to which provisions of Community law had, in his view, been breached and which facts had given rise to this appraisal. With regard to alleged fraud in relation to Community funds, DG Health and Consumer Protection assumed the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) to be at issue. Therefore a copy of the complainant's letter was forwarded to DG Agriculture.

On 2 February 2004, the complainant addressed a letter to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). Referring to two enclosed newspaper articles which reported on the application of pesticides in, and the poor state of, the Bauernmarktscheune, the complainant explained that Mr S., a former mayor of Stadtsteinach, now in charge of the Landratsamt Kulmbach, had made accusations against the European Union and an energy centre in Kalamata (Greece). Following these accusations, the authorities of Kalamata had to pay back EUR 35 700 to the EU and the Landratsamt, which the complainant considered unfair. The complainant pointed out that the same Mr S. had obtained 100 000 German Marks of EU funds by fraud for use at the Bauernmarktscheune which was in a ruinous state. Pesticides had had to be applied, whereas prepared food was still being sold there. Pointing to his previous contacts with the Commission, the complainant took the view that things were not handled correctly there, and hinted at possible divergences in competences within the Commission. In light of an alleged danger of epidemics at the Bauernmarktscheune, he claimed that Mr S. should pay back EUR 35 700 to Kalamata and 100 000 German Marks to the European Union. In addition, Mr S. should be obliged to close down the Bauernmarktscheune.

On 7 February 2004, the complainant addressed a supplementary letter to OLAF. Again he referred to various newspaper articles and reiterated his claim that Mr S. should pay back certain amounts in connection with the Bauernmarktscheune. He also raised the issue of unequal treatment, previously dealt with in his correspondence with the Commission, and drew attention to a danger of epidemics when food was prepared in a barn where pesticides had been applied.

By letter of 10 March 2004, OLAF informed the complainant that there were insufficient indications of suspected fraud. As a consequence, no investigations would be started.

On 13 May 2004, DG Health and Consumer Protection sent a further letter to the complainant in which it stated that it had received from DG Agriculture a copy of the complainant's letter of 2 February 2004 to OLAF and considered that it contained additional remarks on the hygienic conditions in the Bauernmarktscheune. Regretting the delay in replying to these additional remarks, DG Health and Consumer Protection pointed out that the complainant's letter still did not contain sufficient additional information which would make possible an examination as to whether the complaint could have any basis in Community law. If there was no basis in Community law, the Commission was unable to initiate infringement proceedings. DG Health and Consumer Protection also informed the complainant about the work of the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office ("FVO"), whose aim was to ensure effective control systems and to evaluate compliance with Community standards. Finally, it informed the complainant about a link to a website where the results of a recent mission by the FVO to two German Länder could be found.

The complainant sent further letters to DG Health and Consumer Protection on 26, 27 and 31 May 2004. In these, he essentially pointed to enclosed newspaper articles covering the application of pesticides and the poor state of the Bauernmarktscheune. Again he referred to food being prepared in bad hygienic conditions and reiterated his allegations of fraud. He pointed out that the evidence for fraud was blatant, given the various newspaper articles published. Moreover, he voiced the suspicion that the director of OLAF, a German national, had ordered a stop on the handling of complaints coming from Germany. The complainant also enclosed newspaper articles on certain alleged dysfunctionalities at OLAF and sent new information on "torture in nowadays' Germany".

By letter of 18 June 2004, DG Health and Consumer Protection informed the complainant of its decision to discontinue corresponding with him on this matter, since no new elements had emerged that would allow the launch of infringement proceedings.

By letter of 25 November 2004, DG Agriculture informed the complainant that, after additional consultation with the Bavarian authorities, it did not intend to propose to the Commission to start infringement proceedings with regard to his complaint. Reasoning its decision, it pointed out that building regulations were not within the competence of the European Union. Equally, rural development projects were supervised by the Member States. An individual case, such as the one at issue, could not suggest insufficient supervision by the German authorities of projects funded by the Community which could justify starting infringement proceedings.

Complaint 2486/2006/(WP)BEH

On 18 June 2006, the complainant submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman (2486/2006/(WP)BEH). The complainant essentially alleged that DG Health and Consumer Protection, DG Agriculture, and OLAF had failed properly to deal with his submissions concerning the Bauernmarktscheune. He claimed that the matter he raised should be investigated further.

The complainant attached copies of his exchange of letters with the Commission and OLAF.

By letter of 18 September 2006, the Ombudsman informed the complainant that he could not deal with the complaint insofar as it concerned OLAF, given that this part of the complaint was outside the time limit of two years, set out in Article 2(4) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman. By the same letter, the complainant was informed that the Ombudsman had started an inquiry into (a) the complainant's allegation directed against the Commission's DG Health and Consumer Protection and DG Agriculture, as well as (b) his claim.

By the same letter, the complainant was informed that his undated observations received by the Ombudsman on 4 and 9 August 2006 were not within the Ombudsman's mandate, given that they were not related to acts of a Community institution or body. These observations concerned (a) the alleged forced sale of his company, (b) the alleged denial of access to documents relating to certain court proceedings in Germany and (c) alleged torture in the hands of German authorities.

Together with (d) the alleged contamination of the plot of land where the complainant's factory was situated, these allegations had been the subject of complaint 3813/2005/AE. Given that this complaint was against a German court and German national authorities, it was declared inadmissible on the basis of Article 2(1) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman by letter of 16 January 2006.

The complainant forwarded further observations on the said aspects of complaint 3813/2005/AE in conjunction with a request for the Ombudsman's support of the complainant's petition for an amendment to the German code of criminal procedure. These observations were submitted to the Ombudsman on 4 and 11 September 2006.

Following his further request of 30 September 2006 for the Ombudsman's support of his petition for an amendment of the German code of civil procedure, the complainant was informed on 29 November 2006 that the Ombudsman was not entitled to intervene in or attempt to influence the legislative activities of the national and European legislatures.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion, the Commission observed that the complainant's complaint to the Commission related to the misuse of agricultural funds in the renovation of the Bauernmarktscheune and to the bad hygienic conditions in this building. It therefore fell within the competence of OLAF, DG Agriculture and DG Health and Consumer Protection. The Commission went on to list in detail the complainant's correspondence with DG Health and Consumer Protection and DG Agriculture and the various replies sent by the Commission services.

As concerns his correspondence with DG Agriculture, the complainant had not provided sufficient information which would have allowed the Commission's services to ascertain whether or not a violation of Community law existed. In May 2003, DG Agriculture requested information from the German authorities and received a detailed reply, explaining the nature of the renovation project, its aim and the justification of the amounts spent. In conclusion, the Commission observed that appropriate attention had been given to the file. At the same time, the Commission apologised for delays that had occurred in answering some of the complainant's letters or in the handling of the file.

The complainant's letters of 3, 12 and 17 February 2007

In his letter of 3 February 2007, the complainant reiterated his grievances and asked for the opening of a new complaint procedure concerning the denial of access to documents relating to the contamination of his factory. By letter of 12 February 2007, the complainant forwarded to the Ombudsman "further evidence" on an alleged "contamination and torture conspiracy" which he had sent to various units of the Commission. On 17 February 2007, the complainant sent to the Ombudsman newspaper clippings reporting on the conduct of a former mayor of Stadtsteinach.

The complainant's observations

In his observations, the complainant pointed out that his complaint had not been meant as an act of revenge but had rather been intended to inform the Commission of the scandalous conditions regarding the "contaminated object", articles about which had been boldly published by those in charge. The only fact he could not prove, which was however well-known to local insiders, was that those in charge had boasted about having "milked" the EU by receiving funding for a contaminated ruin.

The complainant criticised the fact that he had not been informed of the publication of a report on a mission of the FVO mentioned by DG Health and Consumer Protection in its letter of 13 May 2004.

In its opinion, the Commission took the view that the complainant's letter to DG Health and Consumer Protection of 2 February 2004 did not supply the additional information requested. The complainant raised the question as to what more could still be expected from him, given that he had already sent relevant newspaper cuttings which contained information about the dramatic state of the Bauernmarktscheune, the application of pesticides, as well as statements by those running the barn to this effect. He considered OLAF's stance as to the existence of insufficient evidence as particularly grave.

Finally, he pointed out that he was concerned about the unequal treatment of businessmen in the same commune. If the Commission and the Ombudsman were not interested in this issue and the EU had too much money to allocate to the renovation of a contaminated structure and no interest in investigations concerning his own contaminated property, the complainant's only hope remained the European Court of Human Rights.

In addition to his observations, the complainant sent annotated articles from newspapers and law journals, which had apparently been sent to certain German politicians, and also attached a copy of his complaint to the European Court of Human Rights.

The complainant's letters of 7 and 28 March and 24 April 2007

By letters of 7 and 28 March, and 24 April 2007, the complainant sent further annotated articles as well as documents relating to judicial proceedings involving him. These articles related amongst others to the legal force of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Germany, projects funded by the EU, the indictment of a former U.S. Defence Secretary by German courts, access to documents, and the supremacy of Community law.

The complainant's letter of 31 May 2007

By letter of 31 May 2007, the complainant sent a list of judicial and administrative documents relating to proceedings before German courts, which had allegedly disappeared. He deplored that the Ombudsman had completely ignored his call for help with regard to his allegations of torture and contamination.

The complainant's letters of 21 June and 2 July 2007

By letter of 21 June 2007, the complainant forwarded to the Ombudsman a copy of his letter to the President of the "Human Rights Committee" of the German Bundestag in which, referring to his continuous grievances and two statements of the President, he alleged that German judges and prosecutors were lying, committing fraud, counterfeiting, embezzling, menacing, perverting justice and ordering torture. At the same time, the complainant alleged dishonesty on the part of the President who had emphasised the need for better implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. In a letter of 2 July 2007, the complainant asked why the Ombudsman had stayed passive for years with regard to his allegations of torture.

THE DECISION

1 Preliminary remarks

1.1 The complaint is related to the purchase by the complainant in 1985 of an old paper mill in Stadtsteinach (Bavaria). In complaint 3813/2005/AE, the complainant had complained about the sale of his factory by court order, the contamination of the plot of land, where his factory was situated, torture in the hands of German authorities, and denial of access to documents concerning criminal proceedings and the contamination of the piece of land. By letter of 16 January 2006, the complainant was informed that the Ombudsman was not entitled to deal with his complaint since it was not related to an act of a Community institution or body.

1.2 The present complaint concerns the Commission's and the European Anti-Fraud Office's ("OLAF") alleged failure properly to deal with the complainant's submissions concerning the "Bauernmarktscheune Stadtsteinach" ("the Bauernmarktscheune"), a property used for gastronomic purposes. In his correspondence with the Commission and OLAF, the complainant alleged in particular that funding for the Bauernmarktscheune had been obtained by fraud. Moreover, according to the complainant, the hygienic conditions in the Bauernmarktscheune as well as Member State control were insufficient.

1.3 Against this background, the complainant alleged that OLAF and the Commission's Directorates-General ("DG") Health and Consumer Protection and Agriculture had failed properly to deal with his submissions concerning the Bauernmarktscheune. He claimed that the matter he had raised should be investigated further. Given that the complainant had not made a complaint to the Ombudsman within two years of the date on which he had received OLAF's last reply, the complainant's allegation against OLAF was declared inadmissible by reason of Article 2(4) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman. Therefore the Ombudsman asked the Commission for its opinion on the complainant's allegation relating only to the actions of the two DGs involved.

1.4 In the course of the inquiry, the complainant submitted certain new allegations. More specifically, he complained about (1) torture in the hands of the German authorities; (2) contamination of his property which had not been investigated; and (3) denial of access to certain documents apparently held by German courts and authorities. He further alleged that (4) he had not been informed of the publication of a report by the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office ("FVO"), mentioned by DG Health and Consumer Protection in its correspondence and that (5) OLAF's stance as to the existence of insufficient evidence with regard to fraud was particularly grave.

1.5 The additional allegations (1) to (3) are directed against national authorities or courts. Given that they are not directed against a Community institution or body, they are inadmissible by reason of Article 2(1) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman and have been dealt with accordingly in the context of complaint 3813/2005/AE. The Ombudsman understands the complainant's allegation (4) to be directed against the Commission, which has provided the complainant with a link to a website displaying the said report, but apparently has not made available to him a hard copy of the report. At the same time, the Ombudsman observes that Article 2(4) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman requires complainants to make the appropriate prior administrative approaches to the institution concerned. As far as the Ombudsman can see from the evidence submitted to him, the complainant has not yet submitted the said allegation to the Commission. If the complainant wishes to pursue this issue further, he remains free to lodge a further complaint with the Ombudsman after having made the appropriate prior administrative approaches to the Commission. As regards allegation (5), the Ombudsman draws attention to the fact that it is outside the time limit of two years, given that the complainant had not made a complaint to the Ombudsman within two years of the date on which he had received OLAF's last reply. Since then, no new position has been taken by OLAF on the complainant's case. For these reasons, none of the complainant's new allegations will be dealt with in the present decision.

2 Alleged failure properly to deal with the complainant's submissions and claim that the matter raised by the complainant should be investigated further

2.1 In early 2003, the complainant approached the Commission and pointed out that Community funding had been obtained by fraud and was subsequently spent on the installation of new toilets for 100 000 German Marks in the Bauernmarktscheune, a barn regularly used for gastronomic purposes. In addition, he explained that pesticides worth EUR 29 000 had been applied in the Bauernmarktscheune. According to the complainant, food was being served in the Bauernmarktscheune in spite of its poor condition and the presence of mildew, worms and decay.

2.2 In its reply, DG Health and Consumer Protection explained that, on the basis of the information submitted by the complainant, it was not in a position to ascertain which provisions of Community law had, in the complainant's view, been breached under which set of factual circumstances, and thus asked for clarification. Assuming that the alleged fraud related to the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund ("EAGGF"), DG Health and Consumer Protection forwarded a copy of the complainant's letter to DG Agriculture.

2.3 Having received a copy of the complainant's letter to OLAF, in which he had essentially reiterated his complaint that 100 000 German Marks had been obtained by fraud, DG Health and Consumer Protection took the view that it was still not possible to examine whether the complaint could have any basis in Community law. Having received further letters with attached newspaper articles covering the substance of the complainant's allegations, DG Health and Consumer Protection decided to discontinue corresponding with the complainant, given that no new elements had emerged.

2.4 In November 2004, after consultation with the German government, DG Agriculture informed the complainant that building regulations as well as the supervision of rural development projects were within the competence of the Member States. Since an individual case did not suggest insufficient supervision by the German authorities, it informed the complainant of its intention not to propose to the Commission to start infringement proceedings against Germany.

2.5 In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged inter alia that OLAF, DG Health and Consumer Protection and DG Agriculture had failed properly to deal with his submissions concerning the Bauernmarktscheune.

2.6 In its opinion, the Commission, having listed in detail the complainant's letters and the various replies sent by its services, submitted that appropriate treatment had been given to the file. At the same time, the Commission apologised for delays in answering some of the complainant's letters or in the handling of the file.

2.7 In his observations, the complainant pointed to the many newspaper clippings which he had sent in support of various aspects of his allegations, such as the dramatic state of the Bauernmarktscheune, the application of pesticides, as well as statements by those running the barn to the same effect, and asked what more could still be expected from him before the Commission would take action. He also expressed his concern about what he perceived to be unequal treatment between businessmen.

2.8 The Ombudsman notes at the outset that the substantive aspect of the complainant's allegation that the Commission has failed properly to deal with his submissions relates to the decisions of DG Agriculture and DG Health and Consumer Protection, respectively, not to propose to the Commission the launching of infringement proceedings in light of alleged fraud, alleged insufficient hygienic conditions in the Bauernmarktscheune, and alleged insufficient control by the Member State concerned. By contrast, the complainant has not raised any procedural aspects in his complaint, such as certain delays in the handling of his complaint by the Commission. The Commission was consequently not invited to comment on procedural aspects. The Ombudsman will therefore not examine the procedural aspects in the present decision. In any event, he notes that the Commission has offered an apology for the delays in replying to certain letters or the handling of the complaint.

2.9 Complaints by citizens constitute one of the most important means of information on possible infringements of Community law, because they enable the Commission to fulfil the role assigned to it in Article 211 of the EC Treaty, which is that of a 'guardian' of the Treaty. It is good administrative practice to deal with such infringement complaints as diligently as possible.

2.10 In the present case, DG Health and Consumer Protection informed the complainant on 27 April 2003 of the fact that the circumstances of the alleged violation of Community law submitted by him were not clear. The complainant was therefore asked to state which provisions of Community law had, according to him, been infringed by German authorities and under what factual circumstances. Enclosing the Commission's letter with his complaint, the complainant added a hand-written note with regard to this passage of the Commission's letter, explaining that he had sent relevant newspaper articles twice. In fact, the complainant had repeatedly enclosed relevant newspaper articles with his letters to the Commission.

2.11 In the newspaper articles submitted by the complainant, the desolate condition of the Bauernmarktscheune was reported. According to one article (Bayerische Rundschau, 26 March 2003), EUR 29 000 had been spent on pesticides applied in the Bauernmarktscheune. Another article (Frankenpost, 26 March 2003) reported that the Bauernmarktscheune had been renovated by the Town of Stadtsteinach for approximately EUR 70 000 some ten years ago. According to the same article, a public toilet had been built in for EUR 40 000 by the Town. The same article also referred to EUR 29 000 having been spent on pesticides. A further article offered a general description of the desolate condition of the building (Bayerische Rundschau, 28 March 2003).

2.12 In further letters intended to elaborate on the hygienic conditions prevailing in the Bauernmarktscheune, the complainant referred essentially to enclosed advertisements in newspapers, containing invitations to fairs at the Bauernmarktscheune and detailing the food on offer.

2.13 The Ombudsman observes that the complainant has extensively relied on newspaper articles which, in his view, amounted to proof of his allegations as to the misuse of agricultural funds in the process of the renovation of the Bauernmarktscheune and as to the bad hygienic conditions prevailing in the building. However, the Ombudsman finds that the content of the relevant articles does not corroborate the complainant's allegations to a sufficient degree. Whereas two of the articles mention the application of pesticides worth EUR 29 000, there is no indication of any fraud to the detriment of the budget of the EU. The same is true of the amounts spent on the renovation of the Bauernmarktscheune. In addition, the amounts reported in one of the articles appear to differ from the amounts indicated by the complainant. Even if one were to assume that newspaper articles in themselves were to be considered as proof for facts, they could not in any event sufficiently corroborate the complainant's allegations in the present case.

2.14 Besides, the Ombudsman must also take into consideration DG Health and Consumer Protection's considerable efforts in connection with the complaint. Thus the complainant was informed by the said DG about the modalities of the procedure for infringement of Community law and was invited twice to specify his allegations. In addition, DG Health and Consumer Protection drew the complainant's attention to the work of the FVO and to a recent report published by it. It equally provided details on how to access this report. Given that the EAGGF may be at issue, it forwarded the complainant's letter to DG Agriculture. Having received a copy of the complainant's letter to OLAF, DG Health and Consumer Protection evaluated the information contained therein and informed the complainant of its stance.

2.15 Against this background, the Ombudsman takes the view that DG Health and Consumer protection has properly dealt with the complainant's submissions and has taken sufficient steps to explore their substance. In particular, DG Health and Consumer Protection's decision not to suggest to the Commission to start infringement proceedings in light of unproven allegations does not appear to be unreasonable.

2.16 Turning to DG Agriculture's handling of the complaint, the Ombudsman cannot fail to take notice of the fact that DG Agriculture has followed up on the complainant's letter of 27 March 2003 by requesting further information from the German authorities. Having received a detailed reply from the German government, DG Agriculture informed the complainant about its position in its letter dated 25 November 2004. Explaining that the enforcement of building regulations did not come within the competence of the EU and that an individual case, such as the one at hand, could not suggest insufficient supervision by the German authorities of projects funded by the Community, DG Agriculture explained its intention to propose to the Commission to close the case. At the same time, it invited the complainant to submit new information if any, within one month from receipt of DG Agriculture's letter. The complainant did not submit any further documents within this period of time.

2.17 In light of the steps taken, the Ombudsman is convinced that DG Agriculture has given full consideration to the arguments raised by the complainant. In particular, it has consulted with the competent German authorities and has explained to the complainant in a detailed manner the factual and legal considerations which led it to its conclusion.

2.18 Against this background, the Ombudsman takes the view that DG Agriculture has properly dealt with the complainant's submissions. In particular, it has followed up on the complainant's submissions by contacting the German government and asking for clarification with regard to the Bauernmarktscheune. In addition, it has sufficiently explained the reasons for which it did not intend to propose to the Commission to start infringement proceedings. Finally, the reasons given do not appear to be unreasonable.

2.19 In view of the above, the Ombudsman considers that there appears to have been no maladministration by the Commission.

2.20 Given that the complainant's allegation cannot be sustained, the complainant's claim that the Commission should investigate his allegation further cannot succeed.

3 Conclusion

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

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

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) In fact, the letter's sender was a "Verein zur Bekämpfung von Existenz- und Arbeitsplatz-Vernichtungs-Methoden und zur Bekämpfung von Willkür/Amtsmißbrauch u. Vetternwirtschaft in oberfränkischer Justiz/Behörden/Politik e.V.". According to the headed paper used, the complainant served as its secretary.