The European Ombudsman has found that there was no maladministration by the European Commission (EC) in how it dealt with a complaint against Spain concerning a breach of European Union (EU) law on pension schemes.

In a letter to the complainant, Mr X, published on the ombudsman’s website, the European Ombudsman head of the case-handling unit, Tina Nilsson, stated that the inquiry has now been closed.

On 14 February 2022, Mr X made a complaint to the European Ombudsman about how the EC dealt with his infringement complaint against Spain. Mr X had argued that Spain failed to transpose, on time, an EU directive that obliged private companies to outsource internal pension schemes to insurance companies. In his view, due to this delay, employees of private companies, like Kodak, were left without pensions and retirement funds.

He believes that the EC was wrong to close the infringement complaint and that it should assess the matter because the legislation was in force when the events occurred.

“After a careful analysis of all the information submitted, we have decided to close this inquiry with the conclusion that there was no maladministration by the European Commission,” the letter stated.

“The commission concluded that it cannot investigate whether legislation that is no longer in force, was compatible, at the time, with EU legislation that is also no longer in force. This is because the purpose of infringement proceedings is to bring an infringement to an end.”

Nilsson acknowledged that it is limited in its role when it comes to how complaints about how the EC has dealt with concerns regarding actions or measures adopted by member states.

“It is not within the ombudsman’s mandate to examine a member state’s compliance with EU law. Instead, the role of the ombudsman in such cases is to ensure that the commission has adequately addressed the concerns raised in an infringement complaint in a clear and reasonable manner. The ombudsman will only intervene in case there is an indication of a manifest error of assessment by the EC of the facts or the law.

“In view of the information available, we consider that the commission has addressed your concerns in a clear and reasonable manner and we find nothing to suggest that the commission manifestly misinterpreted the facts or the law in this case,” Nilsson concluded.

Share Story: