The complaint

1. The complaint concerns the reply given by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (the 'Agency') to the complainant's letter that it sent to the Agency in August 2011 concerning discrimination, xenophobia, and lack of an independent and efficient justice system in France. On 12 August 2011, the Agency replied that it could not assist the complainant as it does not have the power to deal with individual complaints.

2. On 25 August 2011, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman with the present complaint. He alleged that the Agency wrongly refused to deal with his request concerning discrimination against him, xenophobia and the absence of an independent and efficient justice system in France.

The Ombudsman's assessment and conclusions

Admissibility of the complaint

3. After a careful examination of the complaint, all the admissibility conditions are met as regards the complainant's allegation and claim against the Agency. The complaint is therefore admissible[1].

Grounds for investigation

4. In accordance with Article 228 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Ombudsman must consider whether there are sufficient grounds to open an inquiry into the allegation submitted by the complainant.

5. On the basis of a preliminary analysis of the information submitted to him, the Ombudsman found that the Agency's reply that it does not have the power to deal with the complainant's individual complaint was appropriate and correct.

6. Therefore, by letter of 31 October 2011, the Ombudsman asked the complainant to clarify, by 30 November 2011, in what way he considered that the Agency wrongly refused to assist him. The Ombudsman also asked the complainant to submit a copy of the list of bodies to which the Agency advised him to consider sending his concerns.

7. By letter of 6 November 2011, the complainant indicated that he would provide the Ombudsman with a detailed reply at a later stage. The complainant, however, has not submitted his detailed reply.

8. The Ombudsman will therefore analyse the complainant's allegation and claim on the basis of the information already available to him.

A. The allegation that the Agency wrongly refused to assist the complainant

Elements considered by the Ombudsman

9. In August 2011, the complainant turned to the Agency to request its assistance regarding "a matter concerning double discrimination, xenophobia, lack of an independent and efficient justice" system in France.[2]

10. In its reply of 12 August 2011, the Agency replied as follows: "Although we do not have the power to deal with your individual complaint, attached is information on other bodies that may be able to help you or procedures that may be open to you."

The Ombudsman's assessment

11. After a careful consideration of the information available to him, the Ombudsman finds that the Agency's above reply is appropriate and reasonable. This finding is based on the following considerations.

12. Article 2 of Regulation 168/2007 provides that the objective of the Agency is:

"to provide the relevant institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Community and its Member States when implementing Community law with assistance and expertise relating to fundamental rights in order to support them when they take measures or formulate courses of action within their respective spheres of competence to fully respect fundamental rights."

13. However, Regulation 168/2007 does not provide that the Agency deals with complaints about, or gives assistance concerning, the non-respect of fundamental rights.

14. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds that the Agency's reply that it does not have the power to deal with the complainant's individual complaint appears to be appropriate and correct.

15. Furthermore, Article 10(3) of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour[3] requires that "the official shall, where necessary, advise the public on how a matter which comes within his or her remit is to be pursued and how to proceed in dealing with the matter."

16. The Ombudsman notes that, in line with this requirement, the Agency informed the complainant about the "other bodies that may be able to help [him] or procedures that may be open to [him]."

17. On the basis of the above, the Ombudsman confirms his preliminary analysis (see paragraph 5 above) that the Agency's reply is appropriate and correct as it not only explained why it could not assist the complainant, but also provided him with a list of bodies that could eventually be of assistance to him.

18. In light of the above, the Ombudsman finds no instance of maladministration by the Agency.

B. Conclusion

On the basis of his inquiry into this complaint, the Ombudsman closes it with the following conclusion:

The Ombudsman finds no instance of maladministration by the Agency.

He therefore closes the case.

The Director of the Agency will be sent an anonymised version of this decision for his information.

 

P. Nikiforos Diamandouros

Done in Strasbourg on 25 January 2012

---

[1] The Agency was established by Council Regulation 168/2007 establishing a European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, OJ 2007 L 53, p.1. Article 19 of the Regulation (Review by the Ombudsman) states that: "the operations of the Agency shall be subject to the supervision of the Ombudsman in accordance with the provisions of Article 195 of the Treaty." The Agency is therefore within the remit of the Ombudsman.

[2] The complainant did not attach to his complaint a copy of his letter to the Agency, but simply summarised its content.

[3] Available at: http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/resources/code.faces