In November 2001, a doctor working in a German hospital complained to the Commission, arguing that the country had not properly transposed the Working Time Directive, in particular concerning on-call times in medical professions. He said that the German practice resulted in excessive working time for doctors, which entail risks to both doctors' and patients' health (see EurActiv, 10/09/03).
After years during which he did not receive a single letter that "was more than an acknowledgement of receipt", the doctor complained to the European Ombudsman, Nikiforos Diamandouros. The Ombudsman examined the case and came to the conclusion that the complainant was right in criticising the Commission's sluggish handling of the case. He recommended, on 20 September 2006, that: "The Commission should deal with the complainant's infringement complaint as rapidly and as diligently as possible." The Ombusdman gave the Commission until 15 December 2006 to do so (see EurActiv, 20/09/07 and 21/09/07).
One year later, the Ombudsman found that the Commission had still "not [acted] in conformity with the commitments the Commission entered into" in its 2002 Communication on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law: "The Commission can either decide to issue a formal notice, ie to initiate formal infringement proceedings against a member state, or decide to close the case. The Ombudsman notes, however, that the Commission has done neither the one nor the other in the present case."
The Ombudsman therefore "re-states his draft recommendation as a recommendation to the Commission as follows: The Commission should deal with the complainant's infringement complaint as rapidly and as diligently as possible. The European Parliament could consider adopting a resolution accordingly."
The Ombudsman adds that he "considers that the present case raises an important issue of principle concerning the way the European Commission handles complaints submitted by citizens, in which an infringement of Community law by member states is alleged. The question is whether the Commission, instead of opening infringement proceedings or rejecting the complaint, can simply abstain from taking action. The Ombudsman considers that this is not in conformity with principles of good administration."
