Dear Mr X,

On 16 June 2020, you submitted a complaint^[1] to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission on how it dealt with your infringement complaint CHAP(2020)01483 against Belgium[2]. You consider that the Commission was wrong to close the case and to discontinue communication with you on the matter.

After a careful analysis of all the information you provided with your complaint, we regret to inform you that the Ombudsman finds no maladministration by the European Commission.

In your complaint to the Commission, you alleged that you had been the victim of degrading treatment and human rights violations by the Belgian police during your custody in two police stations. You argued that the practices applied by the Belgian police and the conditions in the holding cells amounted to a breach of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘EU Charter’) and of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’).

In its prompt reply, the Commission fully and clearly explained to you why it had decided to close your infringement complaint. It correctly informed you that it has no competence to intervene in this case, as it does not concern the implementation of EU law. As the Commission said, maintaining law, internal order and security falls within the remit of the Member States. Consequently, any action or failure by national authorities in this area remain the responsibility of the Member State concerned - in this case, Belgium - and should be addressed at national level. The Commission gave you appropriate advice on how to pursue the matter at national level and, after having exhausted all national remedies, possibly also before the European Court of Human Rights for violation of the ECHR.

Regarding the alleged breach of the EU Charter, the Commission correctly informed you that the EU Charter applies to the Member States only when they are implementing EU law[3]. As there is no EU law involved in the area concerned (maintaining law, internal order and security), the EU Charter does not apply.   

Finally, the Commission has the right - based both on its own Code of Good Administrative Behaviour[4] and on the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour[5] - to discontinue communication with a complainant not only in case of use of offensive language, as you seem to suggest, but also in case of correspondence with repetitive character. We note that, in your further exchanges with the Commission, you did not bring forward any new element or argument and it was thus reasonable for the Commission to consider your correspondence to be repetitive. On its part, the Commission explained to you on several occasions why it had decided to close your infringement complaint.

For the above reasons, the Ombudsman has closed the case.

We appreciate the difficulties that you have experienced and we realise that you may be disappointed by this decision, but we hope that the above explanations are nevertheless helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Tina Nilsson
Head of Inquiries - Unit 4

Strasbourg, 15/07/2020

 

 

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

[2] We take note of the fact that, together with the infringement complaint CHAP(2020)01483, you submitted to the Commission a second infringement complaint against Belgium. As you would like to know whether this complaint is still open, we have passed on your question to the Commission. In case you do not receive a reply from the Commission within a reasonable time, you may make a new complaint to the Ombudsman. 

[3] Article 51 of the EU Charter (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT). 

[4] Section 4 (https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/code-of-good-administrative-behaviour_en.pdf).

[5] Article 14.3 (https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/resources/code.faces#/page/1).