Dear Mr X,

You submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the decision by the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) to recover funds from the Technische Universität Wien (TU Wien) related to a grant agreement under the Tempus programme. The EACEA took the decision following an external audit, which found ineligible certain costs claimed by TU Wien in relation to staff and costs for printing. The EACEA recovered the funds by offsetting the funds from another project carried out by the TU Wien.

In your complaint, you took issue with:

i. the EACEA’s decision to consider ineligible the staff costs of the Ukrainian staff (based on audit finding no. 2);

ii. the EACEA’s decision to consider ineligible the cost for printing (based on audit finding no. 5);

iii. the EACEA’s decision to issue the debit note to the TU Wien and not to the specific Ukrainian beneficiaries;

iv. how the EACEA handled the ‘contradictory procedure’; and

v. the EACEA’s decision to seek late payment interest for the period while the contradictory procedure was still ongoing.

As a first step of our inquiry, we requested a written reply from the EACEA on these issues. In its reply, the EACEA proposed to reverse the decision to recover the funds by offsetting, cancel the debit note to the coordinator and formally notify each of the Ukrainian beneficiaries of its intention to recover the ineligible staff costs. As issue iii. of your complaint is settled, issue v. on late payment interest is also settled.

The Ombudsman inquiry team then followed up on the remaining issues, especially the ineligible costs regarding staff and printing. In the course of the inquiry, the EACEA informed the Ombudsman that it will not seek to recover from the Ukrainian beneficiaries funds related to ineligible staff costs. Therefore, issue i. concerning the ineligible staff costs is also settled.

You informed the Ombudsman that you are satisfied with the outcome. You also stated that you accept the EACEA’s decision to recover the costs for printing, which were deemed ineligible by the audit.

Based on the above, we have decided to close the inquiry with the following conclusion:

The case is settled.

Yours sincerely, 

Tina Nilsson
Head of the Case-handling Unit

Strasbourg, 21/10/2024