Annual report 2002 - EOI

104 ANNUAL REPORT | 2002
selves the objective not to ensure the proper implementation of Community law, but to
ensure that the project would receive Community funding.
3.2 The Commission gave the official in question the opportunity to present his views at
a hearing. It appears from the summary of the hearing that the Commission concluded that
there was no reason to believe that the said official had influenced any decision taken on
this case and moreover that he was not involved in it, being on annual leave from 15
December 1998 till 31 January 1999, and on unpaid leave on personal grounds from 1
February till 15 June 1999.
3.3 The Ombudsman notes that the Commission invokes the official’s leave as an argument
to support that he had not influenced the decision on this case and that he was not
involved in it. It appears however that this is put in doubt by the following facts of the case
which all date from when the official in question was still in charge of the file.
3.4 On 27 May 1998, the official in question added a note to the file concluding, on the
basis of the new elements in the case, to drop the infringement procedure. In this note, he
stated that a letter would be sent to the complainant to inform her about the Commission’s
intention to close the file. Two months later, on 27 July 1998, further to the decision on
the substance that there was no infringement of Directive 85/337/EC, the Commission
took the decision to fund the project in question. On 9 December 1998, one week before
taking leave, the official in question sent a final letter to the complainant informing her that
the Commission would consider what follow-up to give to the case further to the documents
which the complainant had sent. In this letter it was not mentioned that, in the meantime,
the project had been approved.
3.5 From the above facts it is evident that the official in question was deeply involved in
the decision to drop the case, which was a necessary condition for the funding of the
project by the Commission.
3.6 As regards the argument of the complainant that the official’s party political position
in Greece is incompatible with his duty to supervise Community law, the Ombudsman’s
inquiry has revealed - as it also appears from the Greek press - that in the period preceding
the closure of the case, the official in question had been appointed as adviser for European
affairs for the President of Nea Dimokratia Party, and had attended a party meeting in the
region where he gave a speech about EU environmental legislation. It appears that the
information on his appointment was made public already on 30 November 1998, two
months before taking leave on personal grounds.
3.7 The Ombudsman considers that, from the point of view of the complainant, who did
not know that the official in question was on annual and later on unpaid leave on personal
grounds, and who had moreover recently received a letter signed by the official on 9
December 1998 stating that the case was still being investigated, there appear to be sufficient
reasons to mistrust the impartial and proper handling of the case by the Commission
and to question that the official in question did not conduct himself solely with the interests
of the Communities in mind. In fact it would be difficult for any citizen in any
Member State not to doubt the impartiality of the Commission’s actions as the Guardian
of the treaty if a Commission official who is deeply involved in dealing with an infringement
case also holds a post in a political party in the very Member State that the case
concerns and acts publicly in that capacity at a time when the case is being dealt with. In
the eyes of European citizens, this kind of incident may put at risk the reputation of the
Commission as Guardian of the Treaty, responsible for promoting the rule of Community
law.
3.8 The Ombudsman therefore finds that the Commission, as Guardian of the Treaty, has
failed to secure that this case was dealt with impartially and properly. This constitutes an
instance of maladministration and the Ombudsman makes the critical remark and further
remark below.