Strasbourg, 3 October 2007

Dear Mr B.,

On 21 March 2006, you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission concerning the handling of your registered letter of 6 July 2005 by its Representation in Greece. You supplied a copy of that letter by e-mail correspondence of 29 March 2006, as well as by post which was received on 31 March 2006.

On 24 April 2006, I forwarded your complaint to the President of the Commission and asked the Commission to submit an opinion. On 13 July 2006, the Commission requested an extension of the deadline for its opinion.

By letter of 10 August 2006, I granted the above request and informed you of the change of the legal officer responsible for dealing with your case.

On 10 October 2006, the Commission sent its opinion on your complaint. On 19 October 2006, I forwarded the opinion to you with an invitation to make observations. No observations have been received from you.

I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made. I apologise for the length of time it has taken to deal with your complaint.

THE COMPLAINT

The complaint concerns problems related to the free movement of private aircraft registered in Greece and of their passengers when entering and exiting Greek airports.

In the complaint, the complainant points to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3925/91(1) which prohibits the carrying out of controls and other formalities in respect of, inter alia, cabin and hold baggage of persons taking an intra-Community flight, apart from security checks. The complainant also referred to the Schengen Convention allowing free movement of passengers within the Schengen area without border controls. According to the complainant, in Greece, the above rules are applied only to passengers and vehicles entering Greece through seaports, but aircraft registered in Greece are prohibited from entering or exiting Greece, regardless of their destination or origin, from non-international airports, by virtue of Greek Law No 2960/2001 (the "National Customs Code"). The National Customs Code stipulates that entry to and exit from Greek airports, even within the EU and/or the Schengen area, must take place strictly through airports that are under the supervision and control of the Greek Customs Service. The complainant adds that aircraft registered in other EU Member States have been permitted on numerous occasions to enter or exit from non-international airports.

In the complainant's view, the above situation prevents Greek citizens who have aircraft registered in Greece from exercising their rights of free movement within the Schengen area. Therefore, in his letter of 6 July 2005 to the Commission's Representation in Greece ("the Representation"), he raised the above issue and asked the Representation to (i) inform him whether the said Greek legislation complies with Community law; and (ii) if this is not the case, to demand that the said legislation be duly amended. Up to the date of his complaint to the European Ombudsman, the complainant had received no reply from the Representation.

On 21 March 2006, the complainant submitted a complaint to the Ombudsman. He alleged that the Representation failed properly to handle his registered letter of 6 July 2005.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion, the Commission stated that it regretted its delay in answering the complainant's letter, and presented its apologies to the complainant. The Commission pointed out that it sent a substantive reply to the complainant on 15 June 2006, and provided a copy of the English language version of the reply. In the reply, the Commission apologised again for the delay with which the reply was sent, and informed the complainant that there were no grounds for it to initiate an infringement procedure against Greece. The Commission mainly explained that, although the substance of Community customs law was largely harmonised at the European level, the procedures for controls remained predominantly within the jurisdiction of the Member States. It went on to add that customs administrations in the Member States enforced not only Community law but also national laws, particularly in areas where Member States were primarily responsible. According to the Commission, Community law takes into account the need to organise, in an efficient manner, customs controls throughout the territory of Greece.

In its opinion, the Commission also provided the following overview of the actions it took in relation to the complainant's letter, and offered the following explanations of the reasons for the delay in answering it:

• The Representation received the complainant's letter on 8 July 2005. It sent an initial request for information to the Commission's services in Brussels on 12 July 2005 and informed the complainant accordingly.
• Following the complainant's telephone inquiries, the Representation concluded in October 2005 that there had been problems in transmitting the complainant's letter, and re-sent it to the Commission on 7 October 2005.
• Once the complainant contacted the Representation in December 2005 and January 2006, the latter made inquiries to the Commission services as to the progress it had made in preparing a reply to the complainant's letter. In the course of a telephone conversation on 27 January 2006, the Representation assured the complainant that his case was being examined by the competent Commission services, and explained to him that, due to the complexity of the case, it would still take some time before he would receive an answer.
• The matter raised by the complainant was technically very difficult and different issues had to be reconciled, namely: (i) the principle of free movement of persons; (ii) the unity of Customs Law; and (iii) the need to ensure the security of air traffic. An inter-service consultation of different Commission services was therefore necessary and the Commission had to investigate and analyse the matter carefully. This procedure was time consuming. Moreover, the matter was partly covered by Community law and partly by national law.
• On 20 March 2006, in the course of a telephone conversation with the complainant, the Representation informed him of his rights in case he were not satisfied with the services rendered, including the right to complain to the European Ombudsman. On the same day, a letter with the above information was sent to the complainant.
• On 15 June 2006, the Commission sent a substantive answer to the complainant, which indicated that the relevant Greek legislation was in line with Community law.

The complainant's observations

The complainant did not submit any observations.

THE DECISION

1.1 By letter of 6 July 2005 to the Commission's Representation in Greece ("the Representation"), the complainant raised issues related to the problems in the free movement of private aircraft registered in Greece and their passengers when entering and exiting Greek airports. He requested that the Representation (i) inform him whether the relevant Greek legislation complies with Community law; and (ii) if this was not the case, demand that the said legislation be duly amended.

Up to the date of his complaint to the European Ombudsman, the complainant received no reply from the Representation. Therefore, in his complaint to the Ombudsman, he alleged that the Representation failed properly to handle his registered letter of 6 July 2005.

1.2 In its opinion, the Commission noted that it sent a substantive reply to the complainant on 15 June 2006, stated that it regretted its delay in answering the complainant's letter, and presented its apologies for that delay.

In its substantive reply of 15 June 2006 to the complainant, the Commission (i) apologised for the delay in sending its reply; (ii) informed the complainant that there were no grounds for it to initiate an infringement procedure against Greece; and (iii) explained to the complainant the reasons for the above conclusion.

In its opinion on the complaint, the Commission also explained the reasons for which it was unable to send its reply on an earlier occasion. In this regard, the Commission invoked: (i) the problematic internal transmission of the complainant's request from the Representation to the competent Commission services in Brussels; and (ii) the complexity of the issue raised by the complainant, due to which an inter-service consultation of various Commission services had become necessary.

1.3 The Ombudsman finds it regrettable that the Commission provided a substantive answer to the complainant's letter of 6 July 2005 only on 15 June 2006, that is, more than 11 months after the Representation had received it. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman notes and welcomes the fact that, both in its opinion on the present complaint, as well as in its substantive reply of 15 June 2006 to the complainant, the Commission offered its apologies to the complainant for the delay which occurred in providing him with the reply.

1.4 Furthermore, the Ombudsman notes that the Commission provided a number of explanations concerning the reasons why it was unable to provide the complainant with a substantive reply earlier.

1.5 The Ombudsman also notes the Commission's arguments concerning the complexity of the issue raised by the complainant, which is partly covered by Community law and partly by national law. The issue required an inter-service consultation of various Commission services, as well as careful investigation and analysis. In addition, various issues had to be reconciled: (i) the principle of free movement of persons; (ii) the unity of Customs Law; and (iii) the need to ensure the security of air traffic. The Ombudsman considers that the above arguments are, in themselves, sufficient to explain the Commission's position.

1.6 Moreover, the Ombudsman notes that the Representation had maintained contacts with the complainant by telephone, assuring him that his case was being dealt with and drawing his attention to its complexity.

1.7 The Ombudsman finds therefore no instance of maladministration as regards this aspect of the complaint.

1.8 Nevertheless, the Ombudsman also notes that the Representation first transferred the complainant's letter to the Commission services in Brussels on 12 July 2005. However, the difficulties in the internal transmission were detected, and the letter re-sent to Brussels, only on 7 October 2005, following the complainant's telephone inquiries. In this respect, the Ombudsman will make a further remark below.

2 Conclusion

The Ombudsman concludes that his inquiry into this complaint has not revealed an instance of maladministration. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

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

Further Remark

The Commission could consider introducing appropriate changes in the system of internal transmission of files between its Headquarters and its Representations/Delegations in order to ensure that such transmission is always prompt and efficient.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3925/91 of 19 December 1991 concerning the elimination of controls and formalities applicable to the cabin and hold baggage of persons taking an intra-Community flight and the baggage of persons making an intra-Community sea crossing, OJ 1991 L 374, p. 4.