Decision of the European Ombudsman on complaint 205/2003/IJH against the European Commission

Strasbourg, 4 September 2003

Dear Mr T.,

On 29 January 2003, you made a complaint to the Ombudsman against the Commission. Your complaint concerns a contract between the Commission and World Wide Pictures Ltd, of which you are Managing Director, for co-financing of a television story about organic agriculture.

On 11 February 2003, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission. On the same date, I invited the UK authorities to provide any information that could be useful for the Ombudsman’s inquiry into the complaint.

The Commission sent its opinion on 21 May 2003. I forwarded the opinion to you with an invitation to make observations. On 7 July 2003, the Commission sent further information. On 1 and 2 September 2003, you spoke by telephone to the legal officer in my services who is dealing with your case. On 2 September 2003, you sent a copy by e-mail of a letter that you had sent to the Commission.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant is Managing Director of World Wide Pictures Limited (WWP Ltd.). The complaint is against the Commission, DG Agriculture.

In summary, the relevant facts according to the complainant are as follows:

Between January 1998 and December 2001, WWP Ltd. produced a monthly television programme called "CONTACT Europe". Each edition had four stories, which were sponsored by Directorates General of the Commission under specific contracts, paid for by Member States, or co-funded. In April 2000, WWP Ltd. delivered a story about organic agriculture. The budget was € 25 036, funded half by DG Agriculture and half by the UK Foreign Office. The UK Foreign Office paid its half. However, as was often the case, the Commission was very slow in getting the specific contract out. In this case, the contract was not issued until June 2000. The Commission paid 60% of its half of the funding on signature. WWP Ltd. subsequently invoiced the Commission for the final 40% and continued to press for payment throughout 2001 and into 2002. On 8 February 2002, the Commission informed WWP Ltd. that an EU financial Regulation had been broken because WWP Ltd. had made the programme before the contract was issued, that the final 40% would not be paid and that WWP Ltd. would have to repay the 60% already paid.

WWP Ltd. met with DG Agriculture and requested a meeting with the relevant financial and legal services to discuss the Regulation in question. DG Agriculture undertook to provide WWP Ltd. with a copy of the Regulation and to arrange a meeting if WWP Ltd. felt the matter required further clarification. However, despite numerous follow-up requests, WWP Ltd. has not been informed of the Regulation and its latest requests have received no response.

It had been made clear to WWP Ltd. from the pre-contract stage that it would need to produce work whilst the bureaucracy caught up with the reality of the deadlines. This situation continued for three years and was accepted by the responsible officials in various Commission DGs.

On the basis of the above, the complainant argues that either a change in the applicable EU Regulation was applied retrospectively, or that the breach of the Regulation, if any, was by the responsible Commission officials.

The complainant claims that the Commission should reverse its position and pay the remaining 40% due with interest, as well as compensation for the complainant’s time spent on the matter.

THE INQUIRY

The Ombudsman forwarded the complaint to the Commission for an opinion.

In view of the complainant’s statement that the United Kingdom’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office had duly paid its half of the funding for the project, the Ombudsman also invited the UK authorities to provide, in accordance with Article 3 (3) of the Statute of the Ombudsman(1), any information which could be useful for the Ombudsman’s inquiry into the complaint. No reply was received.

The Commission's opinion

In May 2003, the Commission stated that having re-examined the file in the light of the complaint to the Ombudsman, the competent departments of the Commission have decided to pay the requested sum and that the necessary administrative steps will be made as soon as possible.

In July 2003, the Commission sent a copy of a letter that it had addressed to the complainant confirming payment of the contested amount to the complainant’s bank account.

The complainant's observations

The complainant confirmed to the Ombudsman’s services by telephone that he has received the amount due, with interest, and that he is satisfied. He thanked the Ombudsman for his assistance. The complainant also sent a copy of his letter dated 2 September 2003 to the head of unit AII.1 of Commission DG Agriculture, thanking him for the payment of € 5 008 and the interest due of € 659,83 and stating that the matter is settled.

THE DECISION

1 Failure to pay the amount due under a contract

1.1 The complainant is Managing Director of a company which produced a story that was co-funded by the Commission. According to the complainant, Commission DG Agriculture informed the company that an EU financial Regulation had been broken because the company had made the story before the relevant contract was issued, that the final 40% would not be paid and that the company would have to repay the 60% already paid. The complainant claims that the Commission should reverse its position and pay the remaining 40% due with interest, as well as compensation for the complainant’s time spent on the matter.

1.2 The Commission’s opinion states that, having re-examined the file in the light of the complaint to the Ombudsman, the competent departments of the Commission decided to pay the requested sum and that the necessary administrative steps will be made as soon as possible. The Commission subsequently sent a copy of a letter confirming payment of the contested amount to the complainant’s bank account.

1.3 The complainant confirms that he is satisfied with the payment of € 5 008 and interest of € 659,83 that he has received from the Commission and that the matter is settled.

1.4 In view of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission has taken adequate steps to settle the complaint and has thereby satisfied the complainant.

2 Conclusion

It appears from the Commission’s comments and the complainant's observations that the Commission has taken steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied the complainant. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

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

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) “The Member States' authorities shall be obliged to provide the Ombudsman, whenever he may so request, via the Permanent Representations of the Member States to the European Communities, with any information that may help to clarify instances of maladministration by Community institutions or bodies unless such information is covered by laws or regulations on secrecy or by provisions preventing its being communicated. Nonetheless, in the latter case, the Member State concerned may allow the Ombudsman to have this information provided that he undertakes not to divulge it.”