Decision of the European Ombudsman on complaint 2331/2007/RT against the European Commission

Strasbourg, 3 March 2008

Dear Mr X,

On 11 September 2007, you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission, concerning the reimbursement of your mother's funeral fees.

On 18 October 2007, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 3 December 2007 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. No observations have been received from you.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant's mother, a former official of the European Commission, died on 14 April 2004.

On 22 May 2006, the complainant submitted to the Commission a request for reimbursement of the fees he had paid for his mother's funeral. He also attached the documents proving that he had paid the fees in question. The complainant stated that the reimbursement should be made to his bank account.

In June 2006, an official of the Commission informed the complainant that his dossier had been completed. That official suggested that the funeral fees be reimbursed to his wife's bank account, given that the Commission already had her bank account details since she was an official of the Council. The complainant agreed to this proposal.

Given that his wife was not reimbursed, the complainant tried, on several occasions, to contact the Commission. In March 2007, the complainant contacted an official from the Social Services of the Council. The official informed him that the dossier has been closed since August 2006 and advised the complainant to contact the Commission's Office for administration and payment of individual entitlements.

On 5 April 2007, the complainant wrote to the Head of the Commission's Office for administration and payment of individual entitlements and stated that he had not been reimbursed for the funeral fees. He also referred to his financial difficulties.

On 24 April 2007, the Commission informed the complainant that it had reimbursed the funeral fees by transferring the relevant sum to his mother's bank account, although it had not received from the complainant the documents proving the payment of funeral fees.

On 8 May 2007, the complainant replied to the Commission. He pointed out that he had never received the bank statement concerning the reimbursement of the funeral fees and added that his mother's bank account had been closed since 2 July 2006. He also stated that he had sent to the Commission all the documents proving payment of the funeral fees.

In a letter dated 19 June 2007, the Commission informed the complainant that last transfer, it had made to his mother's bank account were effected in August 2006 and the payment had not been returned. The complainant was advised to contact his mother's bank.

On 25 June and 5 July 2007, the complainant contacted again the Head of the of the Commission's Office for administration and payment of individual entitlements and stated that he had not received the bank statement confirming the reimbursement in question. Moreover, the complainant pointed out that he could not contact his mother's bank since he had no proof that the monies had been transferred.

On 11 September 2007, the complainant lodged a complaint with the Commission under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. On the same day he submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman.

The complainant alleged that the Commission did not reimburse him for the funeral fees.

In support of his allegation, the complainant argued that the Commission was informed whom it must pay and it agreed that the reimbursement would be made to his wife's bank account.

The complainant claimed that the Commission should reimburse him the fees for his mother's funeral.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

The Commission's opinion can be summarised as follows:

As to the facts:

On 11 September 2007, the complainant lodged a complaint with the Commission under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. He pointed out that the reimbursement of the funeral fees was made to his mother's instead of his wife's bank account. The Appointing Authority forwarded the complaint to the Management Committee(1). The Central Office and the Office responsible for settling claims sent their opinion on 20 September 2007. The Management Committee sent its opinion on the complainant's complaint to the Appointing Authority on 10 October 2007.

On 3 December 2007, in its reply to the complainant's Article 90(2) complaint, the Directorate-General for Administration acknowledged that the reimbursement of the funeral fees was mistakenly made to his mother's bank account and accepted to reimburse the funeral fees, that is to say, EUR 2 122.70 and make the necessary payment to the bank account of the complainant's wife's.

As to the merits:

In its opinion, the Commission pointed out that the present complaint to the Ombudsman was inadmissible and recalled that, according to the Statute of the Ombudsman(2), the complainant should have exhausted the prescribed prior administrative approaches before submitting his complaint to him. The Commission stated that, at the time when the complainant submitted his complaint to the Ombudsman, he had also lodged an Article 90(2) complaint with the Commission. The Commission took the view that the complainant had failed to exhaust all the possibilities for the submission of internal administrative requests. Therefore, the Ombudsman should have considered the present complaint inadmissible. However, bearing in mind its "duty of care", the Commission responded to the issues raised by the complainant in the present case.

The complainant's observations

No observations were received from the complainant.

THE DECISION

1 Preliminary remarks
Admissibility of the complaint to the Ombudsman

1.1 In its opinion, the European Commission objected to the admissibility of the complaint. The Commission took the view that the complainant's complaint to the European Ombudsman did not comply with the conditions specified in Article 2(8) of the European Ombudsman's Statute and that he should not have considered the complaint to be admissible. The Commission recalled that the procedure referred to in Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations had not been exhausted by the complainant before he submitted his complaint to the Ombudsman.

1.2 The Ombudsman points out that he decides on the admissibility of the complaints de casu ad casum, on the basis of the evidence made available to him and according to the provisions of the EC Treaty and the Statute of the European Ombudsman.

1.3 Article 2(8) of his Statute only foresees that no complaint may be made to him that concerns work relationships between the Community institutions and bodies and their officials and other servants unless all the possibilities for the submission of internal administrative requests and complaints, in particular the procedures referred to in Article 90(1) and (2) of the Staff Regulations, have been exhausted by the person concerned and the time limits for replies by the authority thus petitioned have expired. The Ombudsman emphasises that the present complaint was not submitted by an official. Moreover, it appears that the complainant had approached the Commission repeatedly over a period of one year seeking redress and referred to his financial difficulties. Therefore, the Commission had had occasion to correct its decision but had not done so before the complainant turned to the Ombudsman. Finally, although the complainant also challenged the Commission's decision by submitting to the Commission an Article 90(2) complaint, it was not clear that the Commission would consider such a complaint to be admissible and would now accept to deal with a problem that had already, on several occasions, been brought to its attention by the complainant. The Ombudsman therefore considered that the circumstances of the case required an immediate action on his part and decided to admit the complaint.

2 Failure to reimburse the funeral fees

2.1 After the death of his mother, a Commission official, the complainant requested that the Commission reimburse the funeral fees. The complainant agreed with the Commission's suggestion that the reimbursement should be paid into his wife's bank account. The Commission subsequently reimbursed the amount in question by paying that amount into a bank account other than the one agreed by it and the complainant.

2.2 The complainant alleged that the Commission did not reimburse him for the funeral fees.

The complainant claimed that the Commission should reimburse him the fees that he had paid for his mother's funeral.

2.3 In its opinion, the Commission acknowledged that it had made an error by making the reimbursement of the funeral fees, that is to say, EUR 2 122.70, to the bank account of the complainant's mother and decided to correct its error and to make the reimbursement of the amount in question to the bank account agreed by the Commission and the complainant.

2.4 The Ombudsman sent the Commission's opinion to the complainant. The Ombudsman did not receive any written comments from the complainant in relation thereto.

2.5 The Ombudsman takes the view that the Commission has taken steps to settle the matter. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

3 Conclusion

Following the Ombudsman's initiative, it appears that the Commission has taken steps to settle the matter. The Ombudsman welcomes the Commission's positive approach and closes the case.

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

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) Article 38(6.f) of the Rules on sickness insurance for officials of the European Communities.

(2) According to Article 2(8) of the Ombudsman's Statute: "No complaint may be made to the Ombudsman that concerns work relationships between the Community institutions and bodies and their officials and other servants unless all the possibilities for the submission of internal administrative requests and complaints, in particular the procedures referred to in Article 90(1) and (2) of the Staff Regulations, have been exhausted by the person concerned and the time limits for replies by the authority thus petitioned have expired."