Dear Mr M.,
On 12 and 27 November 1998, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission. You alleged that the Commission had not dealt properly with the complaint you had submitted to it. This complaint concerned the allocation of a milk reference quantity by German authorities under Regulation 1078/77(1) and the alleged failure of the Commission to act.
On 18 December 1998, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 5 March 1999 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations which I received on 12 April 1999.
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 European Commission.

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant acquired land which was subject to a non-marketing obligation by the former owner. According to Council Regulation No.1078/77 of 17 May 1977 (hereafter non-marketing scheme - SLOM), milk producers could oblige themselves not to produce milk for a period of four to five years for which they were granted a compensation. After having taken over the land by way of purchase and lease, the complainant applied to the Commission and the German Ministry for Agriculture for the allocation of a reference milk quantity under the above mentioned Regulation. The complainant claims that both bodies failed to act as he has still not received any allocation of a reference quantity. He then addressed the Ombudsman.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion
In its opinion, the Commission made the following comments with regard to the complaint:
Milk producers who disposed already over primary quota, such as the complainant, and who took over a holding which was subject to a non-marketing obligation under the non- marketing scheme could obtain a special reference quantity under the so-called SLOM III Regulation 2055/93(2), provided that
· the milk producer had taken over such a holding or part of such a holding during the non-marketing period and had signed a written undertaking to carry out that obligation, or
· the milk producer took over by way of inheritance or similar means part or whole of a holding from a milk producer who had taken over the non-marketing or conversion obligation during the obligation period for that holding
· and the milk producer has made an application for the allocation of a specific reference quantity according to the procedure foreseen in the SLOM III Regulation within the time limit set out in that regulation.
The allocation of reference quantities according to the SLOM III Regulation was in the competence of the Member States. The complainant claims to have made such an application to the competent national authority but had not provided any information on the outcome of his application. However, from the information given by the complainant it seemed quite clear that even if he had addressed in time an application to the competent national authority it would have been rejected because he did not fulfil the major conditions for the allocation of a specific reference quantity as listed above. As the complainant has taken over the land in 1990 and later, he could not have taken over a non-marketing obligation during the respective period because such an obligation ended in the mid-1980s at the latest. Neither had he acquired the land by inheritance or similar terms because he had purchased and leased it.
The complainant's observations
In his observations, the complainant maintained his complaint. He stated the following:
In 1993 he had applied for the allocation of a reference quantity to the Commission which had forwarded the request to the Federal Ministry for Agriculture. The latter had failed to decide on the matter.
The complainant referred to the conditions of acquisition a milk reference quantity under the SLOM III Regulation no. 2055/93. He put forward that if the purchaser or the tenant of land has apparently no right to request a reference quantity, these persons are in fact disadvantaged, as compared to those who inherited the land and who can claim the quantity.

THE DECISION

1 The failure to act by German authorities
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 can therefore not investigate the complainant's allegation that the German authorities failed to act and to provide the complainant with an allocation of a reference quantity of milk.
2 Allocation of a special SLOM reference quantity and alleged failure to act by the Commission
2.1 The complainant is of the opinion that he should have been allocated a reference quantity and that the Commission failed to act upon it.
2.2 The Commission points out that the allocation of reference quantities according to the SLOM III Regulation is in the competence of the Member States.
2.3 As regards the complainant's claim to be entitled to a reference quota the Commission replied that the application for the allocation of a reference quantity in the framework of Regulation 2055/93 had to be made before 1 November 1993 to the competent body in the relevant Member State. No such application appeared to have been made by that date. According to the Commission, it appears likely that the complainant's application, if it had been submitted to the competent German bodies in time, would have been rejected because the complainant did not fulfil the necessary criteria as set out in the SLOM III Regulation. The complainant appeared to have taken over the land in 1990 and later. He therefore neither can have taken over a non-marketing obligation during the respective period because such an obligation period ended in the mid-eighties at the latest nor did he acquire the land by way of inheritance or in similar terms because he purchased and leased it.
2.4 Given that it is not within the competence of the Commission to allocate reference quantities and given that the Commission has reacted to the complainant's requests, there appears to be no evidence to suggest that - in this regard - the Commission has not acted in accordance with the rules binding upon it. There is therefore no evidence of maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint.
3 Alleged disadvantage to be a buyer or tenant of land as regards the acquisition of a milk reference quota under the SLOM III Regulation
The complainant first raised this issue in his observations. Since he did not appear to be questioning the validity of the Regulation, the Ombudsman did not consider it necessary to investigate this claim, which appears to concern the merits of Community legislation. The Ombudsman notes that the complainant has the possibility to pursue this matter by way of a petition to the European Parliament.
4 Conclusion
On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint there appears to have been no maladministration on the part of the Commission of the European Communities. The Ombudsman therefore closes the file.
The President of the European Commission will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely,
Jacob SÖDERMAN

---

(1) OJ L 131 of 26 May 1977, p.2

(2) OJ L 187 of 29 July 1993, p. 8