European Ombudsman

Summary of the decision on complaint 3373/2008/(BB)(BU)JF against the European Commission

The complainant, a French non-profit scientific organisation, successfully carried out three Commission-sponsored projects in the former Soviet Union. However, an external audit subsequently conducted at the complainant's premises revealed that the arrangement made between the complainant and a company in Moscow concerning the payment of staff was against the applicable rules. The complainant acknowledged its mistake, which it explained was the result of its limited understanding of legal matters. It argued however that it had always kept the Commission's project officer, who had attended a number of events organised in connection with the projects, informed of its practices. The project officer was therefore aware that the complainant had no employees of its own (since its staff members were all volunteers) and that without the arrangement involving the company in Moscow it would have been impossible for it successfully to complete the projects.

The Ombudsman first made a proposal for a friendly solution and later a draft recommendation, urging the Commission to waive its claim for reimbursement. The Commission refused to do so. The Ombudsman then emphasised that, when faced with project officers' silence vis-à-vis their actions concerning the projects they execute, organisations such as the complainant may reasonably be led to believe that they are acting in accordance with the applicable rules. When this is not the case, and once project officers are made aware of such actions, they should take preventive action and when they fail to do so, it should be possible to subject them to disciplinary measures. Since the foregoing raised an important issue of principle, the Ombudsman considered that a special report to the European Parliament could be justified. However, he decided not to address such a report to Parliament before a specific own-initiative inquiry is conducted into certain aspects of the Commission's behaviour when dealing with projects it finances. He therefore informed the Commission that he would consider launching such an own-initiative inquiry and closed the case with a finding of maladministration on the part of the Commission for its disproportionate and unfair recovery of certain sums from the complainant.