The same kind of failure to inform a complainant was detected in case 2697/2006/(ID)MF, but the Ombudsman closed the inquiry without making a critical remark because the Commission apologised for its failure.Still in relation to procedural obligations laid down in the Communication, the Ombudsman, in case 1512/2007/JMA, made a further remark, in which, while confirming that there was no maladministration in the Commission's handling of the complaint, invited the institution to try and implement point 4(5) of its Communication by explaining to complainants the possible alternative forms of redress in cases of alleged infringement of Community law by Member States.A further recurrent problem detected in the Ombudsman's inquiries in this area relates to the registration of complaints.
Braitheadh an cineál céanna mainneachtana maidir le gearánach a chur ar an eolas i gcás 2697/2006/(ID)MF, ach dhún an tOmbudsman an fiosrúchán gan ráiteas criticiúil toisc gur ghabh an Coimisiún leithscéal as a mhainneachtain.Fós i ndáil leis na dualgais ghnásúla leagtha síos sa Teachtaireacht, i gcás 1512/2007/JMA, rinne an tOmbudsman ráiteas breise inar dhearbhaigh sé nach raibh aon drochriarachán i gceist leis an mbealach ar dhéileáil an Coimisiún leis an ngearán, ach inar iarr sé ar an institiúid iarracht a dhéanamh pointe 4(5) dá Teachtaireacht a chur i bhfeidhm trí na cineálacha éagsúla cúitimh féid‑eartha a bhí ar fáil i gcásanna de shárú líomhnaithe ar dhlí an Chomhphobail ag Ballstáit a mhíniú do ghearánaigh.Fadhb athfhillteach eile a braitheadh i bhfiosrúcháin an Ombudsman sa réimse seo ná fadhb maidir le clárú gearán.