Strasbourg, 24 September 2007

Dear Mr P.,

On 5 July 2006, acting on behalf of the "Fundación Pere Tarrés", you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission. The complaint concerns a study of unaccompanied immigrant minors carried out by your foundation and financed by Community funds (ref.: JAI/DAP/00/131/c).

On 16 August 2006, I informed the President of the Commission of your complaint and asked him to submit an opinion on it by 30 November 2006. You sent additional information to me on 4 October 2006. On 12 January 2007, the Commission sent me its opinion in English. On 25 January 2007, the Commission sent its opinion in Spanish, which was forwarded to you on 1 February 2007.

I have received no written observations from you. On 30 and 31 July 2007, my Secretariat informally contacted you by telephone to ascertain whether the problem had been settled by the Commission. You replied to my Secretariat's request on 1 August 2007.

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

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the facts of the case are, in summary, as follows:

The complainant is the representative of a Spanish foundation ("Fundación Pere Tarrés"). On 13 February 2001, the Commission granted the complainant financial assistance for the implementation of a study regarding unaccompanied immigrant minors. The project was due to be completed by the end of 2001. In July 2002, following the completion of the work, the complainant sent all relevant documents to the Commission. In March 2003, the Commission requested evidence of the payments he had made to the Spanish Treasury and to the Spanish Social Security concerning the project. The complainant was unable to provide those documents since the responsible Spanish authorities had not issued them at that time. In July 2004, the Commission sent its final financial settlement to the complainant. In the same month, the complainant replied to the Commission, enclosing with his letter all the requested financial evidence, in particular a number of documents issued by the Spanish authorities. In the absence of a reply, the complainant wrote to the Commission again on 12 December 2005, requesting that the institution reconsider its financial assessment of the project, and claiming that the final payment should be made. The complainant did not receive a reply to his letter. He then submitted a complaint to the Ombudsman.

In his complaint, the complainant made the following allegation and claim:

The complainant alleged that the Commission failed to reply to his letter of 12 December 2005, which followed his previous correspondence of July 2004, in which he had enclosed documentary evidence concerning the project's expenditure, in order to be able to claim the final payment.

The complainant therefore claims that the Commission should reply to his query and complete the payment of the project.

On 4 October 2006, the complainant wrote to the Ombudsman and explained that, on 27 September 2006, he received a letter from the Commission dated 14 September 2006, informing him that its services would, as soon as possible, make the final payment for the project, which amounted to EUR 49 127.04. The complainant also noted that, in the same letter, the Commission apologised for not having replied to his previous letter of 12 December 2005.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion, the Commission first gave some background information. It explained that, under the Daphne call 2000, the "Fundación Pere Tarrés" participated successfully in the project proposal "CONRED: Comunidad virtual contra violencia ejercida sobre los niños y adolescentes inmigrantes SIN RED de apoyo social". The one-year project started on 1 January 2001 and ended on 31 December 2001.

On 15 March 2001, the Commission replied to a query from the complainant dated 14 March 2001, concerning the form for the final payment request. On 28 March 2002, the complainant submitted the final report and the final financial statement. On 8 April 2002, the Commission asked him to provide the final accounts by electronic means. On 3 May 2002, as the revised final accounts were still not completed, the Commission informed the complainant that he should submit the income part of the final accounts as well. On 9 May 2002, t he complainant sent the requested information in excel format. On 17 May 2002, following the complainant's request of the same date, the Commission provided him with the final accounts template in an electronic format. On 17 December 2002, since the final accounts submitted by the complainant were incomplete and were not in accordance with the obligatory requirements, the Commission requested that he send revised final accounts and a sample of the expenditure items in order for it to conduct an assessment of a sample of the project's expenditure items. The Commission's letter also stated that no request for final payment had been received. On 23 January 2003, the complainant acknowledged receipt of the Commission's letter and asked for an extension of the time to submit additional information. By letter dated 3 March 2003, the complainant submitted the revised final accounts, which however, were neither signed nor certified. No request for payment was sent. On 17 April 2003, the Commission informed the complainant that, in order to proceed with the final payment, it needed additional documents, namely, the requested sample of expenditure items. On 9 July 2004, the Commission received the sample of the expenditure items. By letter dated 19 July 2004, the Commission informed the complainant that the final payment could not be processed since the Commission had not yet received a signed and certified version of the final accounts and a formal payment request for the outstanding payment as requested on 17 April 2003. The Commission also informed the complainant that, according to the result of the first assessment of his final accounts and supporting documents, a final payment of EUR 49 127.04 could be made. In the same communication, the Commission offered the complainant the possibility to submit additional information concerning the rejected items.

By letter dated 30 November 2005, which was postmarked 12 December 2005 and registered at the Commission on 14 December 2005, the complainant complained about the fact that he still had not received the outstanding payment.

The Commission noted that, although it had not received a formal payment request in accordance with its communication of 19 July 2004, it was prepared to accept the complainant's letter of 12 December 2005 as such in order to be able to close the file. Accordingly, the Commission stated that it had taken the necessary steps to make the final payment of EUR 49 127.04 to the complainant's account.

As regards its alleged failure to reply to the complainant's letters of 12 December 2005, the Commission apologised for not having replied to the complainant. It explained that an internal reorganisation, which occurred in January 2004, put in place a new unit dealing with these files. S ince 2005, f ollowing the consolidation of the unit, it had put in place a performance monitoring system regarding incoming mails. A large number of pending files were closed in 2004, 2005 and 2006 and, provided that the beneficiaries of such projects comply with the obligatory requirements, situations similar to the one in the present complaint should not occur in the future.

The Commission concluded by noting that it had now taken the necessary steps to make the project's final payment. O n 14 September 2006, the Commission sent a letter to the complainant informing him of this.

The complainant's observations

The complainant did not submit any observations on the Commission's opinion. On 30 and 31 July 2007, the Ombudsman's Secretariat informally contacted him by telephone. In a reply of 1 August 2007, the complainant explained that the subject-matter of his complaint had been settled, although there were still some outstanding issues involving the Commission's final payment which he was currently negotiating with its services. The complainant thanked the Ombudsman for his efforts to reach a solution to the problem.

THE DECISION

1 Commission's failure to reply to a letter

1.1 The complainant alleges that the Commission failed to reply to his letter of 12 December 2005, which constituted a follow-up to his previous correspondence of July 2004 in which he had requested that the Commission should pay the financial assistance due for the implementation of a project he had carried out in relation to unaccompanied immigrant minors. In the complainant's view, his letter, which also included all necessary evidence concerning the project's expenditure, constituted a request that the final payment be made.

The complainant therefore claims that the Commission should reply to his query.

1.2 In its opinion, the Commission apologises for not having replied to the complainant. It explains, however, that an internal reorganisation, which occurred in January 2004, put in place a new unit dealing with these files. Since 2005, following the consolidation of the unit, it had set up a performance monitoring system regarding incoming mails. The Commission notes that a large number of pending files were closed in 2004, 2005 and 2006 and, provided that the beneficiaries of such projects comply with the obligatory requirements, situations similar to the one in the present complaint should not occur in the future.

In the same opinion, the Commission explains that it was now prepared to regard the complainant's letter of 12 December 2005 as a formal payment request and has taken the necessary steps to make the project's final payment and close the file. On 14 September 2006, the Commission sent the complainant a letter informing him of this decision regarding the final payment.

1.3 In a letter to the Ombudsman dated 4 October 2006, the complainant explains that, on 27 September 2006, he received a reply from the Commission dated 14 September 2006 in which it apologised for not having replied to his letter of 12 December 2005.

The Ombudsman notes that, on 1 August 2007, the complainant contacted the Secretariat of the Ombudsman in order to thank the Ombudsman for the efforts undertaken to reach a solution. The complainant explained that that the subject-matter of his complaint had been settled.

1.4 The Ombudsman notes that, as set out in Article 14 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour(1), every letter or complaint sent to any EU institution shall receive an acknowledgement of receipt within a period of two weeks, except if a substantive reply can be sent within that period. According to Article 17(1) of this Code, letters should be replied to within a reasonable period of time and in any case no later than two months from the date of receipt.

The Ombudsman further notes that, even if in this case the Commission failed to act in accordance with the above provisions, it proceeded to reply to the complainant's letter following the Ombudsman's inquiry and to apologise for not having replied. The Ombudsman is also mindful of the fact that the Commission has explained the measures it has meanwhile adopted in order to avoid a situation similar to the one in the present case from occurring in the future.

1.5 In view of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission appears to have taken adequate steps to settle this aspect of the case and has thereby satisfied the complainant.

2 Payment of the project carried out by the complainant

2.1 The complainant claims that, as requested in his letter of 12 December 2005, the Commission should complete the payment of the project he carried out at the end of 2001, concerning unaccompanied immigrant minors.

2.2 In its opinion, the Commission explains that it has accepted the complainant's letter of 12 December 2005 as a payment request in order to be able to close the file. Accordingly, the Commission agrees to take the necessary steps to make the final payment, which it states amounted to EUR 49 127.04, to the complainant's account. It also notes that it informed the complainant of this action by letter of 14 September 2006.

2.3 In a letter to the Ombudsman dated 4 October 2006, the complainant explains that, on 27 September 2006, he received a reply from the Commission dated 14 September 2007, in which it informed him that its services would, as soon as possible, make the final payment corresponding to the project carried out by the complainant for an amount of EUR 49 127.04.

2.4 The Ombudsman notes that, on 1 August 2007, the complainant informally contacted his Secretariat in order to thank him for the efforts undertaken to reach a solution. He also explained that the subject-matter of his complaint had been settled, even though there appear to be some outstanding aspects involving the Commission's final payment, which the complainant was in the process of negotiating with its services.

2.5 In view of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission appears to have taken steps to settle this aspect of the case.

The Ombudsman notes, however, that there appear to be certain issues regarding the final payment of the project which have not yet been settled, and constitute the object of negotiations between the Commission and the complainant. The Ombudsman is mindful of the fact that these issues had not been raised in the original complaint, and did not therefore constitute part of his inquiry.

In light of the above, the Ombudsman concludes that no further inquiries appear to be justified as regards these issues.

The Ombudsman wishes to point out that the complainant may consider renewing his complaint to him if the above problem concerning the details of the Commission's final payment is not solved to his satisfaction.

3 Conclusion

On the basis of the information gathered in the course of his inquiry, the Ombudsman concludes that the first aspect of the complaint has been settled by the Commission to the complainant’s satisfaction. As regards the complainant's claim, the Ombudsman has concluded that no further inquiries appear to be justified.

The Ombudsman therefore decides to close the case.

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

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) The European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour is available on the Ombudsman's website: (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/code/pdf/en/code2005_en.pdf).