Decision of the European Ombudsman on complaint 304/2004/TN against the European Commission

Strasbourg, 20 October 2004

Dear Mr B.,

On 27 January 2004, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission concerning a research proposal (FP6-502870) which had been submitted by your company Arno Nordic AB.

On 16 February 2004, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 6 May 2004 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. No observations appear to have been received from you.

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

THE COMPLAINT

In February 2004, a complaint was made to the Ombudsman against the European Commission concerning a research proposal (FP6-502870) which had been submitted by the Swedish company Arno Nordic AB.

According to the complainant, the relevant facts are, in summary, the following:

On 18 March 2003, the complainant's company, Arno Nordic AB (hereafter "Arno Nordic"), submitted a research proposal to the Commission's DG Research. Shortly after having submitted the proposal, the contact person mentioned in the proposal, Mr B, left his position in the company. On 8 April 2003, the complainant therefore informed the Commission, by registered letter, that Mr B had left his position and that Mr B's tasks had been taken over by the complainant himself. This information was also sent to the Commission in an e-mail.

Nevertheless, in May 2003 the relevant Commission services contacted Mr B regarding the research proposal and, as it appears, discussed changes to it or possibly a withdrawal. The complainant contacted the Commission, pointed out that the Commission had made a mistake and requested a written explanation. When he did not receive a written explanation, the complainant sent an e-mail to the Commission, repeating his request. He also asked for information on when the Commission had actually changed the name of the contact person on the proposal from Mr B's to his. The complainant received an e-mail reply from the Commission stating that Mr B's departure from the company had no implications for the evaluation of the proposal.

In June 2003, the complainant sent the Commission an e-mail with several questions relating to the change of contact person. Among other things, he asked whether the information that he had provided in his letter of 8 April 2003 about the change of contact person was sufficiently clear and why the Commission had not answered this letter. A Commission official replied, by e-mail, stating that the information was sufficiently clear, but that he had never received the complainant’s letter of 8 April 2003 and that he was therefore unaware of the change of contact person when he contacted Mr B in May. The official further stated that a proposal cannot be changed, but that he now knew that the complainant was the contact person, which was sufficient.

On 3 July 2003, the Commission sent the complainant a letter concerning the proposal. The letter was addressed to the complainant (i.e. with the complainant's name) but was sent to Mr B's address. The complainant informed the Commission about its mistake in an e-mail.

On 8 December 2003, the Commission sent Mr B a letter regarding the evaluation of the proposal. The complainant again sent the Commission an e-mail, informing it of its repeated mistakes.

In addition, the complainant states that an acknowledgement of receipt of the proposal was dated 18 November 2003. However, he received the letter only on 19 January 2004. The date of the postmark was 18 January 2004. The complainant considers this delay in dispatching the letter to be unreasonable.

The complainant alleges that the Commission has:

i) Been negligent in its handling of the information that there had been a change of contact person as regards the research proposal; and

ii) Unreasonably delayed the dispatching of the acknowledgement of receipt of the research proposal.

The complainant claims that the Commission should explain and correct its behaviour.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion, the Commission makes the following comments:

On 18 March 2003, the company Arno Nordic submitted a research proposal for an integrated project under the first call for proposals under thematic priority 1 FP6-2002-LifeSciHealth. The proposal was received by the FP6 external service provider on 20 March 2003 and was registered as proposal number FP6-502870. The proposal specified Mr B as the contact person for Arno Nordic.

On or about 28 March 2003, the Commission sent an acknowledgement of receipt of the proposal to Mr B, mentioning the registration number attributed to Arno Nordic's proposal.

On 15 May 2003, the complainant sent the Commission an e-mail stating that he had sent a registered letter informing the Commission that he had taken over as contact person for the proposal on behalf of Arno Nordic. He questioned why this letter had not been acknowledged and acted upon. However, up until 15 May 2003, the Commission was unaware of the existence of the registered letter. Recent enquiries to the external service provider have indicated that the complainant's letter arrived on 14 April 2003, i.e. after the deadline for submitting proposals, and that it had been filed. It is not clear if and when the letter had been forwarded to the Commission.

In subsequent telephone calls and e-mails, the Commission assured the complainant that the content of his e-mail of 15 May 2003 had been duly noted. The complainant was informed that whilst the rules for proposal evaluation precluded any alteration of the proposal, the change in contact person for Arno Nordic had been noted. It was stressed that the change in contact person would not in any way affect negatively the evaluation of the proposal.

The evaluation procedure was completed on 6 June 2003. By the end of June 2003, it was understood by the Commission that any issue regarding the proposal had been resolved to the complainant's satisfaction.

However, two subsequent mistakes occurred in relation to the creation of local mailing lists based on the information provided in the original proposal. On or about 3 July 2003, the Commission sent a letter intended for the complainant concerning the results of the proposal evaluation. The letter was sent to Mr B's address. Furthermore, in December 2003, the Commission mistakenly contacted Mr B as part of a survey exercise. The complainant notified the Commission of these mistakes. The Commission regrets any inconvenience caused by the mistakes. It should be noted, however, that the mistakes had no bearing on the evaluation of Arno Nordic's proposal. At the time of the mistakes, the evaluation procedure had already been completed.

As regards the allegedly delayed dispatching of a letter dated 18 November 2003, it is not clear to the Commission to which letter the complainant is referring. It might be that the letter in question relates to another proposal (FP6-005226) submitted by the complainant under a subsequent call for proposals. The letter referred to might be the acknowledgement of receipt, dated 19 November 2003, for this new proposal. However, all the correspondence that the complainant enclosed with his complaint to the Ombudsman relates to the first proposal (FP6-502870). In view of the uncertainty as regards the letter in question, the Commission is not in a position to respond properly to the complainant's allegation in this regard.

The Ombudsman invited the complainant to submit observations on the opinion. No observations appear to have been submitted by the complainant.

THE DECISION

1 The allegedly negligent handling of information

1.1 The complaint, which is against the European Commission, concerns a research proposal (FP6-502870) which was submitted by the Swedish company Arno Nordic AB (hereafter "Arno Nordic") on 18 March 2003, mentioning Mr B as contact person. According to the complainant, shortly after having submitted the proposal, Mr B left his position in Arno Nordic and the complainant therefore informed the Commission, by registered letter of 8 April 2003, that he had taken over the position as contact person. Nevertheless, and despite the Commission finally taking note of the change of contact person, the Commission contacted Mr B concerning the research proposal in May, July and December 2003. The complainant notified the Commission of its mistakes at every such occasion. The complainant alleges that the Commission has been negligent in its handling of the information that there had been a change of contact person as regards the research proposal.

1.2 The Commission argues that up until 15 May 2003, when the complainant sent an e-mail regarding the matter, it was unaware of the existence of the registered letter in which the complainant explained that he had taken over as contact person for the research proposal. Recent enquiries to the external service provider have indicated that the complainant's letter arrived on 14 April 2003, and that it had been filed. It is not clear if and when the letter had been forwarded to the Commission. However, in subsequent telephone calls and e-mails, the Commission assured the complainant that the change of contact person had been duly noted and that such a change would not in any way affect negatively the evaluation of the proposal. Nevertheless, Mr B was mistakenly contacted instead of the complainant in July 2003 concerning the results of the project proposal and in December 2003 as part of a survey exercise. The Commission regrets any inconvenience caused by these mistakes but affirms that the mistakes had no bearing on the evaluation of the proposal, which had been completed already on 6 June 2003.

1.3 The Ombudsman points out that principles of good administration require the Community institutions to act with diligence and to be service-minded(1). Furthermore, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission remains fully responsible for the quality of administration carried out by an external service provider on its behalf(2). In the present case, the Ombudsman notes that the complainant took steps to inform the Commission about the change of contact person but that the Commission's external service provider filed the letter and that it is unclear if and when it was forwarded to the Commission. The Ombudsman further notes that after having assured the complainant that it had duly noted the change of contact person, the Commission contacted the wrong person twice concerning matters relating to the project proposal.

1.4 On the basis of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission, by not ensuring the proper handling of the information about the change of contact person, failed to act with diligence and to be service-minded. This constitutes an instance of maladministration and a critical remark will be made in this regard.

2 The allegedly unreasonable delay

2.1 The complainant states that on 19 January 2004, he received an acknowledgement of receipt of the proposal. The acknowledgement of receipt was dated 18 November 2003, but the date of the postmark was 18 January 2004. The complainant alleges that the Commission has unreasonably delayed the dispatching of the acknowledgement of receipt of the research proposal.

2.2 The Commission argues that it is not clear to which letter the complainant is referring. The letter in question might relate to another proposal (FP6-005226) submitted by the complainant under a subsequent call for proposals. In view of the uncertainty as regards the letter in question, the Commission is not in a position to respond properly to the complainant's allegation in this regard.

2.3 The Ombudsman notes the Commission's explanation in its opinion that it is not in a position to respond properly to the complainant's allegation because it is not clear to which letter the complainant is referring. The Commission's opinion, with its explanation as to why it cannot respond to the allegation in question, was forwarded to the complainant with an invitation to make observations. No observations with any clarification regarding the matter have been received from the complainant. In the absence of clarifications from the complainant, the Ombudsman considers that no further inquiries into this aspect of the complaint are justified.

2.4 The Ombudsman points out that the complainant has the possibility to submit a new complaint about the alleged delay if he considers it useful to do so and if he can provide more detailed information.

3 The complainant's claim

3.1 The complainant claims that the Commission should explain and correct its behaviour.

3.2 The Ombudsman notes that the Commission has acknowledged and explained its mistakes as regards the contact person and that it has apologised for the inconvenience caused by these mistakes. Since the mistakes in question relate to specific events in the past which do not appear to have affected the outcome of the evaluation of the research proposal, the Ombudsman does not consider any corrective action possible. The Ombudsman therefore finds that the Commission has satisfied the complainant's claim.

4 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, it is necessary to make the following critical remark as regards the complainant's allegation of negligent handling of information:

Principles of good administration require the Community institutions to act with diligence and to be service-minded(3). In the present case, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission, by not ensuring the proper handling of the information about the change of contact person, failed to act with diligence and to be service-minded. This constitutes an instance of maladministration.

Given that this aspect of the case concerns procedures relating to specific events in the past, it is not appropriate to pursue a friendly settlement of the matter.

As regards the complainant's allegation of unreasonable delay, the Ombudsman considers, for the reasons stated in 2.3 above, that no further inquiries are justified.

On basis of the above, the Ombudsman closes the case.

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

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) Article 12 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, available on the Ombudsman's website: http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu

(2) See case 630/96, reported at page 226 of the European Ombudsman's Annual Report for 1997, available at the following website: http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/report/en/default.htm

(3) Article 12 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, available on the Ombudsman's website: http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu