Strasbourg, 07/02/2001 (Agence Europe) - European Ombudsman Jacob Soederman has sent two critical remarks to the European Commission over its handling of a complaint concerning the construction of a Metro in Thessaloniki, Greece. The Ombudsman concluded that the Commission misinformed the complainant of the reasons of the closure of its investigation and closed the case without giving the complainant a genuine opportunity to produce further evidence. The Ombudsman suggested the establishment of clear procedural rules for the Commission to prevent such a situation from occurring again.
The Ombudsman's decision is the result of the most complex investigation he has ever undertaken. Over the course of the two-year inquiry, the Ombudsman read through hundreds of pages of evidence, took oral testimony from senior Commission officials and inspected dozens of documents held by the Commission. The complaint, concerning the awarding of the Thessaloniki Metro project, was submitted to the Ombudsman in September 1998. The complainant, representing the Macedonian Metro Joint Venture Company, claimed that by awarding the contract to the Thessaloniki Metro Joint Venture Company, the Greek authorities violated Community public procurement law. The complainant called into question the way in which the Commission had investigated and closed his complaint.
Despite the results of the investigation carried out by its Directorate-General for the Internal Market, the Commission closed the case without sending a letter of formal notice to the Greek authorities. By closing the case, the college of Commissioners used its discretionary power, as confirmed by the existing case law of the Court of Justice. The college concluded that given the limited possibility of changing the outcome of the tender procedure, it was better to obtain written assurances from the Greek authorities regarding their future conduct in such cases. However, when informing the complainant of its decision, the Commission's wording suggested that it had closed the case because it had found no infringement to Community law. Such a conclusion is in contradiction with the college of Commissioners' decision, which shows that the Commission closed the case whilst recognising that a possible infringement did take place. Despite giving the complainant the possibility of submitting further evidence in a letter received from the Commission on 19 August 1998, the Commission closed the case eight days later, before the complainant had had time to reply. It only informed the complainant of the closing of the case over three months later, by which time the complainant had written four times concerning further evidence.
The European Ombudsman considers that the misinformation of the complainant regarding the reasons for the closure of the case constitutes a case of maladministration. The denying of the complainant right for his further evidence to be heard goes against the principles of fundamental rights, now also enshrined in the Nice Charter of Fundamental Rights. Consequently, the European Ombudsman considers that it may be necessary to draw up a Code to govern how the Commission deals with citizens in the administrative stage of the infringement procedure.
The complete text of the decision is available on the Internet: http: //http://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int/decision/en/980995.htm