Decision of the European Ombudsman on complaint 1266/2005/MF against the European Commission

Strasbourg, 15 November 2005

Dear Mr X.,

On 24 March 2005, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission concerning the payment of evaluation works carried out by evaluators working for Directorate General Research of the European Commission. On 26 April 2005, you sent me further documents related to your complaint.

On 29 April 2005, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 9 August 2005. On 9 September 2005, I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 16 September 2005. In view of your observations, in which you pointed out that you had accepted the "Commission's proposal", the Ombudsman's services contacted you by telephone on 27 October 2005 in order to ascertain whether you were satisfied with the Commission's reply.

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

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the relevant facts are as follows:

The complainant works as an independent expert evaluating calls for proposals published under the 6th Framework Programme, in Directorate General Research of the European Commission ("DG Research"). According to the complainant, independent experts working as evaluators had to pay for their travel and hotel costs in advance, whereas evaluators from Eastern countries benefited from pre-paid tickets. The complainant argued that Article 106 of Regulation (EC) No 2342/2002(1) provided that sums shall be paid within no more than 45 calendar days from the date on which the payment request was made and that statutory interest shall be paid in case of late payment.

No clarification on the calculation of payments was given to the complainant. In his view, evaluators received an amount of money which was lower than the expenses incurred.

As regards his own situation, the complainant carried out four evaluation assignments during the years 2003 and 2004. He alleged that he had to wait for 7 months before being paid for an evaluation carried out in 2004 (EUR 3 000 in total) and for which he paid EUR 1 500 in advance. In early October 2004, he carried out further evaluation work. He alleged that he had still not received any payment for this evaluation work at the date of his complaint to the Ombudsman.

The complainant contacted DG Research on several occasions. On 28 January 2005, the Commission replied that the payment would be made to him in mid-March 2005. On 31 January 2005, the complainant sent an e-mail to Directorate General Enterprise of the European Commission ("DG Enterprise"). On 8 February 2005, the Commission replied that an internal note was being prepared by the Director-General of DG Enterprise to be sent to Directorate General Budget of the European Commission ("DG Budget") in order that it could take corrective action as soon as possible. The complainant wrote a further e-mail to DG Enterprise on 16 March 2005. On 17 March 2005, DG Enterprise replied that the procedure for payment was pending and that it could take some time. On 17 March 2005, the complainant wrote a further e-mail to DG Research. He had not received any reply by the date of his complaint to the Ombudsman.

In his complaint to the Ombudsman of 24 March 2005, the complainant made the following allegations:

1. The Commission had failed to pay him in due time for the evaluation assignments carried out in 2004.
2. The Commission had failed to give him clarification on the calculation of payments.
3. The Commission had failed to pay interest on account of late payment.

The complainant submitted the following claims:

1. He should, by 31 March 2005 at the latest, be paid for his evaluation assignment (EUR 679) carried out in early October 2004.
2. He should be paid interest on account of late payment as regards the payment received in 2004 and the pending payment.
3. He should be given clarification on the calculation of payments since 2004.
4. All evaluators who are waiting more than 45 days for their payment should be paid before 31 March 2005, including interest on account of late payment.
5. He should be given pre-paid tickets for future evaluation assignments.
6. All evaluators should be given pre-paid tickets for future evaluation assignments.
7. The hotel rooms relating to future evaluation assignments should be booked and paid for in advance by the Commission.
8. DG Budget of the Commission should take measures to solve the problem as soon as possible.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

The opinion of the European Commission on the complaint was, in summary, as follows:

Concerning the alleged failure to pay the complainant in due time for the evaluation assignments he carried out in 2004, the complainant had provided supporting documents on 7 September 2004 and made a request for reimbursement of expenses on 30 December 2004, making it impossible to still make a payment in 2004. As the payment had to be made in 2005 on the basis of a financial commitment made in 2004, it was not possible to make the payment before early February 2005. Due to a large number of reimbursements that the Commission had to deal with during this period, late payments had occurred for some evaluation assignments. A payment of EUR 675 was made to the complainant on 15 April 2005.

Concerning the clarification on the calculation of payments, the complainant was given details of the amounts paid for the working days, the working days outside of Brussels, the daily allowances and the travel costs for each of the evaluation assignments he had carried out in 2003 and in 2004.

The Commission proposed to pay the complainant an amount of EUR 49.15 corresponding to the interest on account of the delay in the outstanding payment. In May 2005, the Commission had taken measures, which were summarised in an action plan, to accelerate payments to experts. As a result of these measures, the Commission had reduced significantly the time taken to pay experts participating in evaluation works.

The complainant's observations

In his reply dated 16 September 2005, the complainant stated that he considered that the Commission had improved its procedures for reimbursement. He informed the Ombudsman that he agreed with the Commission's proposal to pay him interest for an amount of EUR 49.15. The complainant further pointed out that he had been paid within only 30 days for his latest contract.

On 27 October 2005, the Ombudsman's services contacted the complainant by telephone in order to ascertain whether he was satisfied with the Commission's reply. The complainant informed the Ombudsman that he considered the complaint to have been settled and thanked the Ombudsman for his intervention.

THE DECISION

1 The scope of the Ombudsman's inquiry

1.1 In his complaint to the European Ombudsman, the complainant made several claims numbered 1 to 8 above.

1.2 In his letter dated 29 April 2004, the Ombudsman informed the complainant that, since no prior administrative approaches appeared to have been made to the European Commission with regard to claims numbered 4 to 8, these aspects of the complaint were inadmissible on the basis of Article 2(4) of the European Ombudsman's Statute.

1.3 The present decision therefore only deals with the complainant's allegations and his claims numbered 1 to 3.

2 The complainant's allegations and claims

2.1 The complainant alleged that the European Commission had failed to pay him in due time for his evaluation assignments carried out in 2004. He further alleged that the Commission had failed to give him clarification on the calculation of payments. The complainant finally alleged that the Commission had failed to pay interest on account of late payment.

The complainant claimed that he should, by 31 March 2005 at the latest, be paid for his evaluation assignment (EUR 679) carried out in early October 2004. He further claimed that he should be paid interest on account of late payment as regards the payment received in 2004 and the pending payment. The complainant finally claimed that he should be given clarification on the calculation of payments since 2004.

2.2 In its opinion, the Commission explained the reasons for the delays in the payments and stated that a payment of EUR 675 had been made to the complainant on 15 April 2005. The complainant had been given details of the amounts paid for the working days, the working days outside Brussels, the daily allowances and the travel costs for each of the evaluation works that he had carried out in 2003 and 2004. The Commission proposed to pay the complainant an amount of EUR 49.15 corresponding to the interest due on account of late payment. In May 2005, the Commission had taken measures, which were summarised in an action plan, to accelerate payments to experts. As a result of these measures, the Commission had reduced significantly the time taken to pay experts participating in evaluation assignments.

2.3 In his reply dated 16 September 2005, the complainant stated that he considered that the Commission had improved its procedures for reimbursement and that he agreed with the Commission's proposal to pay him interest for an amount of EUR 49.15. He further pointed out that he had been paid within only 30 days for his latest contract. In a telephone conversation of 27 October 2005 with the Ombudsman's Office, the complainant stated that he considered the complaint to have been settled and thanked the Ombudsman for his intervention.

2.4 On the basis of the Commission's opinion and the complainant's observations, and in particular his statement in his telephone conversation of 27 October 2005 with the Ombudsman's services, the Ombudsman concludes that the Commission has taken steps to settle the matter to the complainant's satisfaction.

3 Conclusion

It appears from the Commission’s opinion 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 European Commission will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p.1).