Dear Mr C.,
Dear Mr G.,
On 22 January 1999 you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman, in your capacity as attorney of the International Paper Italia S.p.a.. Your complaint concerned the failure of the European Commission to reply to a request of information sent to the institution on 22 September 1998.
On 18 February 1999, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 3 may 1999, which I forwarded to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. On 25 May 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

The International Paper Italia S.p.a.(hereafter IPI S.p.a.), represented by the complainants, is a producer of a particular type of paper (corrugated paper). In the framework of its activity, the firm employes starch classified with the code N.C. 11.08.12.00 for the production of dampness resistant glue.
Until 1994, the firm had benefited from some production refunds as it is foreseen in the Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1722/93, concerning production refunds in the cereals and rice sector respectively (1).
In order to be eligible for production refunds, it is relevant the degree of purity of the starch in dry matters. This is determined with the aid of the modified polarimetric Ewers method, published in Annex 1 to the third Commission Directive 72/199/EEC(2).
Since 1994, IPI S.p.a. started to use a new type of starch called Collys E 700 (also classified with the code N.C. 11.08.12.00) for the manufacturing of corrugated paper.
Even though they had received the production refunds in accordance with the above mentioned Regulation, the Institute for the Intervention in the Agriculture Market sent a letter to IPI S.p.a on 23 November 1994 asking for the restitution of the refunds. The Institute alleged that the degree of purity of the Collys starch was below the minimum 97% requested by the Regulation.
Following new analysis of the Collys starch, it appeared that different results concerning the percentage of the degree of purity had been reached depending on the analytical method that was used.
Against this background both the National Institute for the Intervention in the Agricultural Market and the two European starch industry associations (cereal starch industry and potato starch industry) asked the Commission to amend and update the relevant Regulation in order to take into account the new analytical methods.
On 30 July 1998 IPI S.p.a. wrote to the European Commission and asked if the relevant services had considered these proposals and if it would be possible to amend and to update the Regulation in a near future.
On 28 August 1998 the Commission answered to IPI S.p.a. explaining that, because the modified polarimetric Ewers method is actually the only method provided in the Community legislation to determine the starch's percentage of degree of purity, IPI S.p.a. could not receive any production refunds. Since IPI Sp.a. considered that the Commission had not properly answered their requests, they wrote again to the institution on 22 September 1998. No reply was received.
The complainants lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman on 22 January 1999, on behalf of the firm. In their letter they stated that the Commission failed to:
(1) Reply to IPI S.p.a's letter of 22 September 1998
(2) Address the substantive points raised in their letter of 30 July 1998, concerning the request to amend Regulation (EEC) No 1722/93.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion
The European Commission's comments on the complaint are in summary the following:
The Commission recognised its failure to reply to the letter of IPI S.p.a dated 22 September and apologised for it. The institution indicated that it had not considered necessary to send an additional letter, since a reply had been forwarded to IPI S.p.a. on 27 August 1998.
The institution explained that it had presumed that the IPI S.p.a. was aware of the reasons which made impossible for the Commission to amend the Ewers method included in the legal notes of the Common Customs tariffs.
These legal notes are the same as those agreed upon in the Goods Identification Harmonized System of the World Customs Organization. The European Community, in accordance with the International Convention of the World Customs Organization, cannot modify the contents of the analytical method unilaterally.
The Commission explained that national Institutes of Normalization could introduce research projects for the modification and updating of the method concerned to the European Committee of Normalization, which is the competent authority for the development of new methods. Once the new method had been validated by laboratories at an international level, it would be possible to give to the method the statute of normalised method and eventually to have it adopted by the World Customs Organization on the basis of a Community proposal.
The complainants' observations
The Ombudsman forwarded the Commission's opinion to the complainants. In their observation, they thanked the Ombudsman for having forwarded to them the Commission's opinion on their complaint.
They also expressed their satisfaction with the Commission's reply that they considered exhaustive and which had answered the questions raised in the previous correspondence.

THE DECISION

1 The alleged failure to reply by the European Commission
1.1 The complainants alleged that they had not received a reply to their letter of 22 September 1998 sent to DG XXI of the European Commission. In its opinion the Commission recognised its failure to reply to the letter of the complainants and apologised for it. The Commission also explained that, in view of a previous correspondence with the complainant on the same matter, it had not considered necessary to give an additional reply to the last letter.
1.2 Principles of good administration require that the administration shall duly and properly deal with citizens in a fair and correct way and provide them with the information they require.
The Ombudsman notes, however, that in its opinion on the case the Commission apologized for this failure and explained why it had not considered it necessary to reply to the letter of 22 September 1998.
The Ombudsman considers therefore that there is no maladministration as regards this aspect of the case.
2 The request to amend Regulation (EEC) No 1722/93 and the alleged failure of the Commission to give reasons for its decision
2.1 In a letter of 30 July 1998, IPI S.p.a asked the Commission to amend and to update Regulation (EEC) N0 1722/93, concerning production refunds in the cereal and rice sector respectively.
Since the reply of the Commission had been considered unsatisfactory, a new request was addressed to the institution. No reply was received to this request.
2.2 Following the inquiry of the Ombudsman, the Commission explained in detail its competences in the matter and stated the reasons why it could not amend the Regulation concerned unilaterally.
In their letter to the Ombudsman of 25 May 1999, the complainants expressed their satisfaction with the institution's explanation. The Ombudsman notes that the European Commission has duly justified its position and therefore considers that there is no maladministration as regards this aspect of the case.
3 Conclusion
On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Commission. 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

---

(1) Article 1 of the Regulation establishes that: "A production refund may be granted to natural or legal persons using starch extracted from wheat, maize, rice, broken rice or potatoes, or certain derived products, in the manufacture of the goods listed in the Annex 1", in which the corrugated paper is included. OJ L 159, 1.7.93, p 112-123

(2) OJ No l 123, 29.5.72, p. 6