Dear Mr M.,
On 2 June 1998 you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the non- payment by the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union of two invoices you had sent for translation and revision work.
On 2 September 1998, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Translation Centre. The Translation Centre sent its opinion on 12 November 1998 and my office informed you by phone of its contents asking if you had observations on it. You replied that you had no comments given that your complaint had been settled.
I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant, who works as a free-lance translator/revisor (English-Dutch) for the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union, complained in June 1998 to the Ombudsman because two invoices he sent in October and December 1997 to the Translation Centre had still not been paid (invoice no. 215 of 30 October 1997 to the amount of ECU 912 - revision English-Dutch, and invoice no. 227 of 31 December 1997 to the amount of ECU 117.64 - translation English-Dutch). The complainant observed that he made several phone calls and sent e-mails, a fax and two registered letters, but received no reply from the Centre as regards the payment of his two outstanding invoices.

THE INQUIRY

The opinion of the Translation Centre
The Translation Centre observed that since the complaint to the Ombudsman was lodged the two outstanding invoices had been paid, respectively in October (invoice 215) and September 1998 (invoice 227). As regards invoice 215, the Translation Centre observed that the complainant had not returned the document formatted in according with the instructions and that therefore the Centre had to retype and re-format the document. For this reason the assessment of the quality of the complainant's revision was not possible before the end of January 1998. However, the invoice was then mislaid during the reorganisation and move of the Freelance Section to new offices, and only paid in October 1998. As regards invoice 227, the Centre observed that it could not accept the invoice submitted by the complainant, because he had applied a higher rate (which he had recently obtained in a contract with the European Commission) than the one agreed with the Translation Centre. The Centre thus refused payment on the grounds that the complainant could not unilaterally modify the rate agreed in the contract. The new, duly corrected invoice of the complainant reached the Centre on 15 July 1998 and was paid on 2 September 1998, in accordance with the "60-day payment clause".
In its comments the Centre observed that, when informing the complainant that the invoices had been paid, it apologised for their late payment. The Centre annexed to its observations a copy of its apology letter of 23 October 1998 to the complainant, as well as the complainant's reply of the same day in which he confirmed the receipt of the payment and considered the matter to be resolved.
The Translation Centre finally observed that it sincerely regretted the late payment, especially given that apart from these two isolated cases, all of other complainant's invoices were paid within the 60-day time limit, some of them even within a week (invoice 216) or a fortnight (invoices 268 and 277). The Centre also informed the Ombudsman that it had taken steps (in particular the improvement of the invoice follow-up system and the demarcation of responsibilities) in order to prevent problems similar to those of the complainant from recurring.
The complainant's observations
The office of the Ombudsman contacted the complainant by phone on 19 November 1998 in order to ask if he had observations. The complainant replied that his complaint had been settled by the Translation Centre to his satisfaction and thanked the Ombudsman for his intervention.

THE DECISION

1. The late payment of the invoices sent by the complainant
1.1 The complainant alleged non payment by the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union of two invoices he sent respectively on 30 October and 31 December 1997. In its comments the Translation Centre informed the Ombudsman that in the meantime the invoices had been paid. It motivated the late payment of the invoices by respectively the fact that the document was not formatted in accordance with the instructions given (invoice 215) and the fact that the invoice had applied a higher rate than the one agreed with the Translation Centre (invoice 227).
1.2 The Translation Centre apologised for the late payment and regretted the matter given especially that all the other invoices of the complainant had been paid within the 60-day limit. From the observations of the Centre (annex), which were confirmed by the complainant in his telephone conversation with the office of the Ombudsman, it was clear that the matter had been settled to the satisfaction of the complainant.
1.3 The Ombudsman welcomes that the Translation Centre has taken steps (in particular the improvement of the invoice follow-up system and the demarcation of responsibilities) in order to prevent similar payment problems from recurring.
2. Conclusion
It appears from the Translation Centre's comments and the complainant's observations that the Centre has taken steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied the complainant. The Ombudsman has therefore decided to close the case.
The President of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely,
Jacob SÖDERMAN