FOR PREVIEWING & TESTING PURPOSES ONLY.
This notification will disappear once the page will be published.
This link is available for less than 30 minutes.
  • Ľahká čitateľnosť
  • Veľkosť textu

Chcete podať sťažnosť na inštitúciu alebo orgán EÚ?

Aktuálny jazyk: 
  • English
Dostupné jazyky: 
Preklad tejto stránky bude k dispozícii o niekoľko minút. Budeme Vás informovať hneď, ako bude hotový.

Decision on how the European Commission dealt with an infringement complaint against Spain concerning breach of EU law on pension schemes (case 396/2022/PL)

Dear Mr X,

On 14 February 2022, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman about how the European Commission dealt with your infringement complaint CHAP(2021)00837 against Spain.

In your complaint to the Commission, you argued that Spain failed to transpose on time an EU directive[1] that obliged private companies to outsource internal pension schemes to insurance companies. In your view, due to this delay, employees of private companies, like Kodak, were left without pensions and retirement funds.

In your complaint to the Ombudsman, you contend that the Commission was wrong to close your infringement complaint. You argue that it should assess the matter because the legislation was in force when the events occurred.

After a careful analysis of all the information submitted, we have decided to close this inquiry with the conclusion that there was no maladministration by the European Commission.

The Commission concluded that it cannot investigate whether legislation that is no longer in force, was compatible, at the time, with EU legislation that is also no longer in force. This is because the purpose of infringement proceedings is to bring an infringement to an end.

When it comes to complaints about how the Commission has dealt with concerns regarding actions or measures adopted by Member States, the Ombudsman’s role is limited. It is not within the Ombudsman’s mandate to examine a Member State’s compliance with EU law. Instead, the role of the Ombudsman in such cases is to ensure that the Commission has adequately addressed the concerns raised in an infringement complaint in a clear and reasonable manner. The Ombudsman will only intervene in case there is an indication of a manifest error of assessment by the Commission of the facts or the law.

In view of the information available, we consider that the Commission has addressed your concerns in a clear and reasonable manner and we find nothing to suggest that the Commission manifestly misinterpreted the facts or the law in this case.

Although I understand you will be disappointed with this reply, I nevertheless hope you find these explanations helpful.[2]

Yours sincerely,

Tina Nilsson

Head of the Case-handling Unit

Strasbourg, 15/03/2022

 

[1] Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A31980L0987

[2] Full information on the procedure and rights pertaining to complaints can be found at https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/document/70707