Annual report 2002 - EOI

44 ANNUAL REPORT | 2002
The report by the Head of the Legal Department concluded that the contested decision
deals properly with the allegations and claims put forward by the complainant and
answered by the EIB in its opinion. Furthermore, the contested decision does not imply
that victims of harassment should be deprived of due process of law, nor that harassment
is acceptable as a management tool. On the contrary, the EIB has a duty to respond to
and assist a victim of harassment, who can complain to the Ombudsman if that duty is not
properly carried out. Moreover, in accordance with Article 41 of the Staff Regulations of
the EIB, the Court of Justice has jurisdiction in disputes between the EIB and its staff.
In view of the foregoing, the Ombudsman considered that there was no reason to withdraw
the contested decision, or to begin a new inquiry into the complainant’s allegations
against the EIB. Nor is there any basis for the Ombudsman to agree to the complainant’s
request to put the matter before the European Parliament, other than through the normal
procedure of making an annual report to Parliament on the Ombudsman’s activities, as
required by Article 195 EC and the Statute of the Ombudsman. The complainant, however,
has the possibility to put the matter before the European Parliament himself by
addressing a petition to that institution.
On 22 July 2002, the Ombudsman informed the complainant accordingly, enclosing a
copy of the report by the Head of the Legal Department.
3.1.4 The Office
for Official
Publications of the
European
Communities
ALLEGEDLY ABU-
SIVE PRICES FOR
CD-ROM EDITION
OF OFFICIAL
JOURNAL
Decision on complaint
993/2002/GG against
the Office for Official
Publications of the
European Communities
THE COMPLAINT
Since 1998, the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities (“the
Office”) publishes the L and C series of the Official Journal also on CD-ROM. The
complainant is a subscriber of this edition. The subscription price that was set in 1998
amounted to € 144 plus VAT.
In January 2002, the complainant was informed by the German sales agent of the Office
that the subscription price had been increased to € 350 plus VAT for 2002 and to € 400
plus VAT for 2003. The complainant submitted that he could not see any objective reason
for such a price increase of 243% (2002) and 278% (2003) since the price had been held
stable for four years. He considered that by doing so, the Office had abused its monopolistic
position.
The complainant further took the view that the Office had used deceptive advertising since
the price mentioned on the EUR-Lex website was that of 2001 whereas the rates for 2002
and 2003 were not indicated.
The complainant pointed out that complaints to the German sales agent of the Office had
been unsuccessful and that his efforts to contact the Office directly in the past (in other
cases) had been futile.
In his complaint to the Ombudsman lodged in May 2002, the complainant thus made the
following allegations:
1 The Office abused its monopolistic position by increasing the annual subscription rate
for the L and C series of the Official Journal on CD-ROM from € 144 in 2001 to € 350 in
2002 and € 400 in 2003;
2 The Office used deceptive advertising with regard to the annual subscription rate of
the L and C series of the Official Journal on CD-ROM.
The complainant claimed that the price should be drastically reduced, perhaps to the level
of 2001 plus an increase of 10% at maximum, that the real prices for 2002 and 2003
should be stated on the EUR-Lex website and that the present subscribers should receive
a letter of excuse regarding the deceptive advertising.