Dear Mr D.,

On 27 March 2002, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the reimbursement of 5 years interest that you paid to the Commission in relation to a recovery order dating from June 1996.

On 9 April 2002, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 22 July 2002 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. No observations appear to have been received from you.

I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the relevant facts were as follows:

The complainant was an auxiliary agent at the Commission from 1 February 1995 to 31 March 1996. In the middle of March 1996 he notified the termination of his contract to the Commission. It appears that, by mistake, the Commission paid him a salary for an extra month (April 1996). The complainant does not remember this, but he does not contest it either.

On 17 June 1996, the Commission sent a recovery order to the complainant for 1.899 € in respect of the overpaid salary of April 1996. The complainant had moved to Luxembourg and never received the recovery order or subsequent reminders.

In December 2001, DG ADMIN proposed to enter into a contract with the complainant to carry out a study. At that moment, the complainant obtained the information that there was a recovery order against him. On 11 December 2001, the complainant sent a letter to the Commission stating that he was ready to pay the sum of 1.899 € to the bank account indicated by the Commission. However, at that stage, the Commission also claimed that the complainant should pay interest for 5 years, namely 448,59 €. The Commission informed the complainant that, as long as he had not paid the principal sum plus the interest, the contract for the study could not go ahead. In order to remedy this situation, the complainant finally paid both the principal sum as well as the interest.

In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant claims that the Commission should reimburse the interest, because he was informed about the recovery order only on 11 December 2001 and he did not receive the registered letter which the Commission mentioned.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

On 17 June 1996, DG Personnel and Administration (at that time DG IX) issued recovery order n° 96003586 Y for 76 612 BEF against "Mrs" D., 7 rue des Marlaires in 6041 Charleroi. This was done in order to recover the salary of the month of April 1996 which had been unduly paid after the termination of the complainant's contract.

The debit note, with a deadline of 30 September 1996, was sent to the above address. A copy of this note was sent again to the same address on 16 December 1996. The two letters were not returned by the post to the Commission.

On 29 May 1997, the Commission's Accounting Officer sent by registered letter a reminder to "Mrs" D.. This letter was sent back to the Commission, with "Mme" crossed out and with the written remark "inconnu, existe Mr. D.". The same letter was sent again to Mr D. and was not returned by the post.

On 8 October 1997, the Accounting Officer sent a formal notice to the complainant to pay. The postal services sent back the acknowledgement of receipt, dated and signed.

A last formal notice was sent to the complainant on 12 May 1998, to the same address in Charleroi. This letter was returned to the Commission by the post with the mentioning "absent le 20/05 - avis remis à Madame".

Because of the non payment of the debt, the complainant was mentioned in the Early Warning System concerning the Commission's debtors who have not paid their debt (SEC(97)1562/2 of 30 July 1997). The mentioning of a beneficiary in the Early Warning System does not block the execution of payments or the making of commitments in his favour. Its aim is to alert the Commission's services of the existence of a problem concerning the beneficiary in order to recuperate the debt by compensation.

In December 2001, DG Personnel and Administration informed the service for the recovery of debts (DG Budget) that it envisaged signing a study contract with the complainant. The service for the recovery of debts informed the complainant in December 2001 of his debt which needed to be paid, both the principal sum and the interest, in accordance with Article 94 of Commission Regulation 3418/93 of 9 December 1993 implementing the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977.

The complainant paid the principal sum (1 899, 11 €) and the interest (448, 59 €) on 18 February 2002. His mentioning in the Early Warning System was therefore modified on 12 March 2002.

The Commission considers that its services have respected the rules concerning the recovery of debts, particularly with regard to interest on delayed payments. The Commission therefore considers that the amount of the interest cannot be reimbursed to the complainant.

The complainant's observations

The complainant did not send observations.

THE DECISION

1 The claim for the reimbursement of the interest paid

1.1 The complainant had a debt of BEF 76 612 (or 1.899,11 €) towards the Commission corresponding to his salary of the month of April 1996 which was undue as he was not working anymore for the Commission. The complainant stated in his complaint that he does not remember this, but that he does not contest it. He finally reimbursed this amount as well as the interest amounting to 448, 59 € on 18 December 2002. He however claims that the Commission should reimburse the interest, because he was informed about the recovery order only on 11 December 2001 and he did not receive the registered letter which the Commission mentioned.

1.2 The Commission described in detail the various steps it had taken to notify the complainant of the recovery order. It pointed also out that, as soon as the complainant had paid the principal sum and the interest, his mentioning in the early Warning System was modified. The Commission considers to have respected the rules concerning the recovery of community debts, more particularly with regard to the delay interest. The Commission is therefore of the opinion that the amount of the interest can not be reimbursed to the complainant.

1.3 The Ombudsman notes that, according to Article 94 of Regulation 3418/93(1) of the Commission "1. Any debt not repaid on the due date shall be subject to interest (…) 2. The rate of interest applicable is that in force during the month in which the debt is due. 3. Interest shall be calculated from the due date laid down in the recovery order to the date on which the debt is repaid in full".

1.4 The Ombudsman notes that the complainant does not contest that the amount of 1.899,11 was unduly paid to him in April 1996. It further appears from the Commission's opinion that the Commission has made several efforts to try to deliver the recovery order to the complainant's correct address.

1.5 Although the Commission has acknowledged an error in the addressee of one of its reminders, the Ombudsman considers that the complainant has not provided evidence to show that the provisions of Article 94 of Regulation 3418/93 requiring payment of interest on a debt were inapplicable in the circumstances of his case. No instance of maladministration was therefore found.

2 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the Commission. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The President of the Commission will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN

---

(1) Commission Regulation (Euratom, ECSC, EC) No 3418/93 of 9 December 1993 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977, OJ 1993 L 315/1.