Dear Mrs S.,

On 5 March 2002, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning two contracts between you and the European Parliament and the European Commission respectively. According to these contracts, you were preparing the daily review of the French press for both institutions.

On 29 April 2002, I forwarded your complaint to the President of the European Parliament. On the same day, I also informed you that I could not inquire into your complaint against the European Commission because you had not made any prior administrative approaches towards the latter.

The European Parliament sent its opinion on 6 June 2002. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 15 July 2002. On 14 October 2002, I asked the European Parliament to submit an additional opinion regarding your case. The European Parliament sent its additional opinion on 5 November 2002 and I forwarded it to you. I received your additional observations on 14 February 2003.

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

With your letter of 13 February you informed me that you have no objection to receive the present decision in English.

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant is a journalist and book-writer. In 1995, she signed a contract with the European Commission to prepare the daily review of the French Press. In 1999, the Commission launched a tender procedure for a new contract. According to the complainant, the price she had to propose to be competitive was so low that the she could not afford to work only for the Commission. The complainant therefore contacted the European Parliament. The latter was already using the complainant's press review. Officials from the Parliament's Information Office in Paris (hereafter Information Office) used to copy the review delivered to the Commission's Representation in Paris. The complainant proposed a contract to the European Parliament and offered to adapt the press review to Parliament's needs. Parliament accepted and both the contract with the Commission and the Parliament were signed.

The contract with the European Parliament came to an end on 31 December 2001. Under the assurance, by officials of the Information Office, that a new contract would be signed, the complainant carried on with her work without contract until 15 January 2002. On that date, the Information Office informed the complainant that Parliament would neither be able to sign a new contract, nor to pay for the work carried out in the first days of 2002. As a consequence, the complainant also had to terminate the contract with the Commission, which was not viable anymore.

The complainant objects to the termination of the contract and considers that she should be paid for work which was carried out after the date on which the initial contract had expired. After having contacted Parliament in that sense, the complainant lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman.

She alleged that repeated assurances were given to her by European Parliament officials as regards the drawing up of a new contract. After 31 December 2001, the complainant therefore continued to deliver her daily press review to the European Parliament and considers this as a tacit renewal of her contract.

The complainant claims that her contract, tacitly renewed in January 2002, be fulfilled for a period of time equivalent to the initial contract and at least for a full year.

THE INQUIRY

The European Parliament's opinion

The opinion of Parliament on the complaint was the following:

The European Parliament concluded a contract with the complainant for monitoring the coverage in the French press of Nicole Fontaine’s Presidency. The contract ran from 1 October 1999. By its nature, this contract was limited in time and specifically mentioned the date on which it expired. The complainant should have been perfectly aware, from Article 2 of the contract that this date was 31 December 2001 and that, in law, the contract terminated on that day.

In conclusion, Parliament submitted that it has not failed in any of its contractual obligations towards the complainant.

Parliament enclosed a copy of the contract with its opinion.

The complainant's observations

The European Ombudsman forwarded Parliament's opinion to the complainant with an invitation to make observations. In her reply of 15 July 2002, the complainant maintained her complaint.

The complainant stated that she was dissatisfied with Parliament's opinion. She asked the Ombudsman to pursue his mediation in order to make Parliament understand that in France nobody can make people work for nothing or interrupt contractual relations which have been extended after the expiry date of the contract.

Further inquiries

After careful consideration of the European Parliament's opinion and the complainant's observations, it appeared that further inquiries were necessary. In its opinion of 6 June 2002, Parliament had not addressed an allegation that had already been put forward in the original complaint of 5 March 2002. Officials of the Information Office allegedly expressly asked the complainant to carry on with her work for Parliament after the end of the contract. The complainant did so until 15 January 2002.

Parliament's additional opinion

Parliament stated that in contrast to the complainant's assertion, the Information Office did not ask her to continue her press work beyond the end of her official contract. As already stated, the agreed termination date of the contract was 31 December 2001. It is true that up to 15 January 2002 the complainant forwarded to the Information Office the press review she was compiling for the Commission Representation. However, she did this on her own initiative and without being asked to do so.

The complainant's additional observations

The complainant declared that in view of the lack of goodwill shown by the European Parliament she had lost hope in the mediation procedure. The complainant informed the Ombudsman that she was seriously considering the possibility to take the case to Court.

THE DECISION

1 Tacit renewal of the complainant's contract

1.1 The European Parliament concluded a contract with the complainant for monitoring the coverage in the French press. The contract expired on 31 December 2001. The complainant alleges that repeated assurances were given to her by European Parliament officials as regards the drawing up of a new contract. After 31 December 2001, the complainant therefore continued to deliver her daily press review to the European Parliament and considers this as a tacit renewal of her contract.

1.2 Parliament argued that, by its nature, the contract was limited in time and specifically mentioned the date on which it expired. The complainant should have been perfectly aware, from Article 2 of the contract that this date was 31 December 2001 and that, in law, the contract terminated on that day. The complainant continued to deliver her work to the Information Office on her own initiative and was not asked to do so by the Parliament's officials.

1.3 According to Article 195 of the EC Treaty, the European Ombudsman is empowered to receive complaints "concerning instances of maladministration in the activities of the Community institutions or bodies". The Ombudsman considers that maladministration occurs when a public body fails to act in accordance with a rule or principle binding upon it. Maladministration may thus also be found when the fulfilment of obligations arising from contracts concluded by the institutions or bodies of the Communities is concerned.

1.4 However, the Ombudsman considers that the scope of the review that he can carry out in such cases is necessarily limited. In particular, the Ombudsman is of the view that he should not seek to determine whether there has been a breach of contract by either party, if the matter is in dispute. This question could be dealt with effectively only by a court of competent jurisdiction, which would have the possibility to hear the arguments of the parties concerning the relevant national law and to evaluate conflicting evidence on any disputed issues of fact.

1.5 The Ombudsman therefore takes the view that in cases concerning contractual disputes it is justified to limit his inquiry to examining whether the Community institution or body has provided him with a coherent and reasonable account of the legal basis for its actions and why it believes that its view of the contractual position is justified. If that is the case, the Ombudsman will conclude that his inquiry has not revealed an instance of maladministration. This conclusion will not affect the right of the parties to have their contractual dispute examined and authoritatively settled by a court of competent jurisdiction.

1.6 The Ombudsman has examined the contract forwarded to him by the European Parliament. Parliament's understanding of the contract, in particular of Article 2 which determines the expiry date and links it to the Presidency of Nicole Fontaine, appears to be correct.

1.7 The Ombudsman notes that it could not be ascertained that the complainant had been instructed by Parliament to deliver her work to the Information Office after the agreed termination of the contract.

1.8 Thus, the Ombudsman considers that Parliament has provided a coherent and reasonable account of the legal basis for its actions and why it believes that its view of the contractual position is justified. The present inquiry has therefore not revealed an instance of maladministration on the part of the European Parliament with regard to this aspect of the complaint.

2 Continuation of the contract

2.1 The complainant claims that her contract, tacitly renewed in January 2002, be fulfilled for a period of time equivalent to the initial contract and at least for a full year.

2.2 In light of the Ombudsman's above findings there is no need to pursue his inquiry into this aspect of the complaint.

3 Conclusion

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

The President of the European Parliament will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN