European Ombudsman

Summary of the decision on complaint 53/2010/OV against the European Commission

The complainant, Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen, a Flemish NGO that provides assistance to refugees, obtained a grant from the European Commission to carry out a project in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In September 2004, the complainant sent an e-mail and letter to the Commission, in which it requested the Commission's approval for an alternative simplified method for reporting the costs of the project, including those incurred by the local entrepreneurs involved in the project. The Commission's contact person replied as follows in an e-mail: "Hereby, ..., I give you our agreement ...". Following an ex-post audit, the Commission however decided to recover an amount of EUR 150 000 from the complainant, arguing that the relevant costs had not been reported in accordance with the provisions of the Grant Agreement. Nevertheless, according to the complainant, those costs had been reported on the basis of the alternative costs reporting method which the Commission had approved. The complainant thus complained to the European Ombudsman, alleging that the Commission had infringed the principle of legitimate expectations by failing to respect the methodology for the reporting of costs that had been agreed with it.

In its opinion, the Commission argued that the e-mail sent by its contact person did not constitute an amendment to the Grant Agreement. The Ombudsman however found that the relevant e-mail constituted an approval of the alternative cost reporting method proposed by the complainant and that it was at least arguable that the Commission had agreed to waive the relevant parts of the Grant Agreement with a view to allowing the complainant to use the alternative cost reporting system. He therefore made a proposal for a friendly solution to the Commission asking it to review, with regard to the costs incurred by the local entrepreneurs in the project, whether, and to what extent, the complainant had complied with the alternative means of justifying expenditure and, on that basis, to consider paying the complainant the corresponding amount. The Commission accepted the friendly solution proposal and stated that, for those projects where the alternative cost reporting method has been respected by the complainant, it would consider the corresponding costs to be eligible and would make an additional payment.

In May 2012, the complainant informed the Ombudsman that it had obtained a payment of EUR 104 842 from the Commission and thanked him for his intervention.