Decision of the European Ombudsman on complaint 399/2002/ME against the European Commission

Dear Mr P.,

By letters dated 22 and 26 February and 8 March 2002, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman on behalf of Tetrastigma Invest AB concerning an application for a grant under the TIDE Programme.

On 18 March 2002, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 4 June 2002. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 5 July 2002.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant, the Swedish company Tetrastigma Invest AB, lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman in February and March 2002. The complaint related to a grant application under the TIDE Programme.

On 23 June 1999, the complainant submitted an application for a grant under the TIDE (Technology Initiative Disable and Elderly people) Programme. The application was sent to the European Commission's Representation in Sweden and, following instructions from the Commission's Representation Office, another copy was submitted to NOPEF, Nordic Project Fund. It was necessary to send the application to the Representation for registration purposes. The Representation would then send it on to "Kommunförbundet" (the Swedish Association of Local Authorities) for further handling. The grant was aimed at carrying out preparatory work under a Spanish-Swedish project for disabled elderly people. The project was performed and the complainant hoped to obtain the grant to cover the costs. A new application was submitted on 1 October 2000, also following instructions from the Commission.

As the complainant did not hear anything, it contacted the Commission's Representation Office. The Commission referred the complainant to Kommunförbundet. Kommunförbundet did not have any information on the status of the application but the complainant was informed that an employee had left Kommunförbundet after having taken several applications and given them to a relative who submitted them in his own name. Tetrastigma's application might have been amongst the "stolen" ones, but no further information could be provided. The complainant contacted several officials at the Commission in Stockholm, Luxembourg and Brussels but never found out what happened to the application.

The complainant also referred to the fraud investigation that was ongoing at the Commission's Representation in Sweden. The complainant had been contacted by the Swedish police about its contacts with the Representation.

In summary, the complainant alleged that the Commission had not provided any information as to what happened with the applications. The complainant claimed (i) that the Commission acknowledges that an application is with its Representation in Sweden; (ii) payment of the grant; (iii) a continued contact.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion, the Commission stated that no grant application had ever been received from the complainant by its Representation in Sweden or by any other Commission Office under the TIDE Programme. The documents submitted by the complainant dated 23 June 1999 and 1 October 2000, which were addressed to NOPEF, could not be considered as formal applications under any EU Programme. The Commission put forward that the complainant's statement that it had acted on instructions given by the Commission's Representation in Sweden had no bearing. The Representation Office had had some contacts with the complainant in order to sort out invoices it received from Tetrastigma without having any trace of the company before.

The Commission stated that without further documentation that a formal application did exist within the TIDE Programme, it was up to the complainant to prove the existence of such an application. The Commission however pointed out that the Call for the TIDE Programme had been published in April 1993 with a deadline for applications in August 1993.

The Commission stressed that it was not responsible for any actions of any national or international authorities with which the complainant had had contacts.

As regards the claim for payment of the grant, the Commission stated that it cannot assume responsibility for any costs without having formally approved to finance a project.

The complainant's observations

In its observations, the complainant maintained its complaint. It stated that a formal application was sent to the Commission's Representation in Sweden and that it had sent it on to Kommunförbundet. During its investigation of the Representation Office, the Swedish police contacted the complainant after having found the application, which thus existed. The complainant also pointed out that its first contact with the TIDE Programme had been in 1997. It had requested application papers from the Representation Office which submitted the requested documents. The complainant put forward that it had at all times acted on instructions from the Commission.

THE DECISION

1 Grant application under the TIDE Programme

1.1 The complainant had sent a grant application under the TIDE Programme to the Commission on 23 June 1999 and on 1 October 2000. The complainant alleged that the Commission had not provided any information as to what happened with the applications. The complainant claimed (i) that the Commission acknowledges that an application is with its Representation in Sweden; (ii) payment of the grant; (iii) a continued contact.

1.2 The Commission stated that no grant application had ever been received from the complainant and that the documents submitted by the complainant dated 23 June 1999 and 1 October 2000, which were addressed to NOPEF, could not be considered as formal applications under any EU Programme. The deadline for submissions under the TIDE Programme had run out in August 1993. Further, the Commission cannot assume responsibility for any costs without having formally approved to finance a project.

1.3 The Ombudsman notes that it is for the Commission to decide upon grant applications. In the present case, the Ombudsman does not consider that the Commission acted wrongly when considering the applications of 23 June 1999 and 1 October 2000 not to fulfil the formal requirements.

1.4 As regards payment of the grant, it follows from the conclusion in point 1.3 that the Commission has no responsibility to issue payment to the complainant. Regarding the complainant's claim of a continued contact, the Commission did not comment on this. The Ombudsman however finds it obvious that the complainant is free to submit applications under any EU Programme or to contact the Commission as any EU citizen or company.

1.5 In addition, the Ombudsman would like to point out that he understands the complainant's frustration in the present case, as there is no reason not to believe that the complainant actually had contacts with the Commission's Representation in Sweden and tried to follow its instructions. However, as it has not be proved that the Commission acted wrongly or deliberately gave incorrect advice, the Ombudsman cannot pursue the matter.

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 European Commission will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN