The background to the complaint

1. EU Project MEDA/MAR/2005/017205, entitled "Prestations d’assistance technique pour la gestion et la coordination du programme d’appui sectoriel à la résorption de l’habitat insalubre au Maroc" ('the Project'), was governed by the provisions of a contract bearing the indication EuropeAid - 122495/C/SV/MA ('the Contract'). The latter was concluded by Gruppo Soges and the Commission on 10 October 2006.

2. On 28 May 2008, Gruppo Soges signed an assignment agreement with Soges. This agreement provided that, if Gruppo Soges were to go into voluntary liquidation, another entity (Soges) would take over Gruppo Soges's contract with the Commission. On 30 May 2008, Gruppo Soges asked for the Commission's approval to transfer to Soges its rights and obligations under the Contract.

3. The Commission accepted Gruppo Soges's above request. On 12 September 2008, it signed an amendment to the Contract which replaced the lead contractor (by substituting Soges for Gruppo Soges) and changed the lead contractor's bank data. According to the amendment, the other terms and conditions of the initial contract remained unchanged.

4. On 28 December 2007, the complainant concluded a contract with Gruppo Soges to work as an expert on the Project.

5. Between January and May 2008, he performed four missions under the Project, but Gruppo Soges only paid him for one of them. When Soges took over the Contract, Gruppo Soges still had to pay the complainant the outstanding amount of EUR 23 500 for the three missions.

6. The complainant thus concluded an addendum to his contract with Gruppo Soges in order to take into account the replacement of Gruppo Soges by Soges. The addendum prolonged the duration of his initial contract until 30 November 2008 and provided for 24 days of additional paid work (more missions). All the other provisions of his initial contract remained unchanged.

7. During the second semester of 2008, the complainant worked on the Project with Soges and was paid for this work. However, Soges did not pay him the amount due to him by Gruppo Soges.

8. On 27 November 2008, Gruppo Soges was declared bankrupt by the Italian authorities. It had not paid the complainant before that date.

9. On 16 March 2009, the complainant informed the Commission of the above and asked it to intervene with Soges to ensure he receive the payment due.

10. On 18 August 2009, Soges informed the complainant that, in the framework of the assignment agreement signed with Gruppo Soges, the latter indicated to Soges "a list of contractual debts which would be taken over by Soges, while the rest would be paid by the Gruppo Soges"[1]. The EUR 23 500 claimed by the complainant was not on this list.

11. On 9 and 13 October 2009, the complainant wrote again to the Commission reiterating his claim to be paid EUR 23 500 for his work on the Project.

12. On 10 November 2009, the Commission replied to the complainant's above correspondence. It informed him that it had forwarded his complaint to Soges.

13. On 19 November 2009, Soges informed the Commission about its intention to conclude an agreement with some of the experts involved in the Project, including the complainant, who had not yet been paid. The Commission did not agree with this proposed action.

14. On 20 November 2009, the complainant approached the Commission again concerning his outstanding payment. The Commission replied by letter dated 18 December 2009. It reiterated that it had no contractual obligations concerning the subcontractors of the lead contractor for the Project.

15. On 15 January 2010, the Commission paid Soges the final payment for the Project.

16. Subsequently, the complainant, who had not been paid by Gruppo Soges, Soges, or the Commission, turned to the European Ombudsman.

The subject matter of the inquiry

17. In his complaint, the complainant alleged that the Commission acted negligently by (i) allowing experts in the same project to be treated differently and (ii) failing to ensure that the Commission's lead contractor fulfilled its contractual obligations towards the experts.

18. He claimed that the Commission should pay the balance due for his work on the Project, as well as damages, that is to say, a total amount of EUR 47 000.

The inquiry

19. On 8 June 2010, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry and asked the Commission to provide an opinion by 30 September 2010. Upon receipt, the Commission's opinion was forwarded to the complainant with an invitation to submit observations. The complainant sent his observations on 3 November 2010.

20. On 4 March 2011, the Ombudsman made a provisional finding of maladministration and, in accordance with Article 3(5) of his Statute, proposed a friendly solution to the Commission after having consulted the complainant on this proposal.

21. On 26 May 2011, the Commission requested an extension of the deadline for sending its reply to the Ombudsman's proposal for a friendly solution.

22. On 27 July 2011, the Commission replied to the Ombudsman's proposal for a friendly solution. This reply was forwarded to the complainant, with an invitation to submit observations by 30 September 2011.

23. On 21 October 2011, the Ombudsman requested the Commission to provide further information in relation to the complainant's complaint.

24. The Commission replied on 19 January 2012. This reply was sent to the complainant who sent his observations on 28 February 2012.

25. On 2 April and 4 June 2012, the complainant sent further correspondence relating to his complaint.

The Ombudsman's analysis and conclusions

A. Allegation of negligent behaviour

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

26. In support of his allegation, the complainant argued that the Commission acted negligently by failing to ensure that its lead contractor fulfilled its own contractual obligations towards the experts. He pointed out that he had informed the Commission that he was not paid for the work he performed under the Project. However, in his view, the Commission did not respond appropriately. Moreover, he pointed out that he was not paid because (i) the Commission's lead contractor was replaced and (ii) the Commission did not monitor the terms of the takeover properly. As a result, the experts who had not been paid before the takeover were not paid at all. According to the complainant, the Commission's payments to the new lead contractor included the experts' fees.

27. In its opinion, the Commission first pointed out that there were two distinct contractual relationships in the case at hand. The first was between the Commission and its lead contractor (initially Gruppo Soges, then Soges) and the second was between the lead contractor and the complainant. The Commission emphasised that it had no contractual relationship with the complainant. It referred, in this respect, to the case-law of the General Court[2] and the General conditions of its Contract with the lead contractor[3]. The Commission was unaware of the provisions of the contract between its lead contractor (initially, Gruppo Soges and then Soges) and the complainant and could not intervene in the execution of such a contract. In particular, the Commission stated that it "did not pay Soges a specific amount of EUR 23 500 corresponding to the amount claimed by the complainant" and was "aware of the services for which it had paid Soges and, among others, the services provided by the complainant, but nothing else"[4].

28. The Commission pointed out that it could not monitor the execution of its lead contractor's obligations towards the complainant. It could only monitor the proper implementation of its own contract with the lead contractor. In this respect, the Commission requested and obtained assurances from both Soges and Gruppo Soges that their assignment agreement was compatible with the applicable law and, notably, that Gruppo Soges' creditors would be protected after the takeover. This also meant that the group of experts chosen by Gruppo Soges at the beginning of the project would be maintained by Soges.

29. The Commission also monitored "all its contracts" with Gruppo Soges to ensure that they were taken over by the new lead contractor, Soges[5]. However, it did not interfere in the contractual relationships between Gruppo Soges, Soges and its experts, including the complainant.

30. The Commission met with Gruppo Soges and Soges and concluded an amendment to the original contract. This amendment replaced Gruppo Soges with Soges. The amendment did not automatically modify the contracts between Gruppo Soges and its experts. The Commission noted that the complainant himself admitted that he had concluded an addendum to his initial contract with Gruppo Soges in order to transfer his contract to Soges. The Commission pointed out that it is not aware of the provisions of this addendum, which constitutes the legal basis of the contractual relationships between the complainant, Gruppo Soges and Soges. In the Commission’s view, the above addendum is the source of conflict between its lead contractor and the complainant, given that Soges considers that it did not take over from Gruppo Soges the outstanding payment claimed by the complainant. In light of the above, the Commission concluded that it did not act negligently as regards the execution of its contract with the lead contractor.

31. As regards the agreement, which was negotiated in November 2009 between Soges and the experts who were not paid, the Commission explained that it could not endorse such an agreement. Doing so would have (i) interfered in the contractual relationships between the lead contractor and its experts; (ii) infringed its own contractual obligations and (iii) treated unpaid experts differently from the other experts.

32. The Commission pointed out that it had acted with due diligence by asking the lead contractor several times about the outstanding amounts due to the experts working on the Project. In this respect, the Commission referred to its letters dated 1 April, 25 August and 22 October 2009, which were sent to the lead contractor with reference to the situation of the unpaid experts.

33. Finally, the Commission rejected the complainant's claim because there was no causal link between its acts and the alleged damage suffered by the complainant. It also pointed out that the amount claimed by the complainant was arbitrarily calculated, given that the amount in dispute between Soges and the complainant was EUR 23 500, while the latter claimed EUR 47 000, without providing evidence to show additional losses which could support such a claim.

34. In his observations, the complainant emphasised that, when implementing the Project, the experts worked directly with the Commission's Delegation in Morocco and not with Soges or Gruppo Soges. Although the Project was successfully implemented as a result of the expert's work, he was not paid. The Commission acted unfairly by stating that it had no contractual relationship with the experts.

35. Furthermore, the Commission ignored the way in which Gruppo Soges treated its experts during the implementation of the Contract, namely, by failing to pay them in due course. The Commission did not warn the experts about the difficult financial situation of Gruppo Soges and failed properly to monitor the transfer of the Contract from Gruppo Soges to Soges. The Commission should have ensured (i) that the transfer of the Contract from Gruppo Soges to Soges would not affect the outstanding payments of the experts involved in the Project and (ii) that all rights and obligations deriving from the Contract would be taken over by Soges from Gruppo Soges. By accepting the assignment agreement between Gruppo Soges and Soges, the Commission endorsed Soges' and Gruppo Soges' behaviour towards the experts.

36. The complainant accepted the Commission's argument that the remaining payment due to him under the Project amounted to EUR 23 500. He thus modified his initial claim, reducing it to EUR 23 500.

The Ombudsman's preliminary assessment leading to a friendly solution proposal

37. As rightly pointed out by the complainant, the principle of sound financial management requires the Commission to check carefully the financial situations of companies when it decides to conclude a contract with them to execute an EU project. However, since the Commission concluded its contract with Gruppo Soges in 2006, and the takeover of Gruppo Soges by Soges took place two years later (admittedly due to the difficult financial situation of Gruppo Soges), it cannot be argued that, in the present case, the Commission failed to comply with the above obligation.

38. Furthermore, according to the Contract[6], the replacement of the lead contractor was only possible with the Commission's agreement. On the basis of the amendment to the Contract signed by all three, the Commission, Soges and Gruppo Soges, it appears that "the transfer of the rights and obligations of Gruppo Soges to Soges was done on the basis of assurances given to the Commission that the assignment was compatible with all applicable laws and, notably, that creditors would be protected"[7].

The Ombudsman did not see why, at that time, the Commission should not have trusted the above assurances.

39. In any event, the Commission should not have relied on such assurances, but should have instead monitored Soges' compliance with them.

40. The Commission argued that, by sending letters to Soges on 1 April, 25 August and 22 October 2009, it monitored whether Gruppo Soges' creditors (that is, the experts who had not yet been paid by Gruppo Soges when the takeover by Soges took place) were indeed protected. In this respect, the Ombudsman notes that, in its letter dated 25 August 2009, the Commission reminded Soges that "following Gruppo Soges's voluntary liquidation, Soges took over all its obligations, including the payment of all experts who had worked on the project"[8]. In the same letter, the Commission added that "it had paid Soges for two invoices (references n°130 and 397) amounting to EUR 72 765 00 in relation to the [complainant]'s work for the project"[9]. In its letter dated 22 October 2009, the Commission reiterated that "on the basis of the rental contract, Soges has taken over from Gruppo Soges all juridical active and passive relationships."

41. In the Ombudsman's view, however, the Commission was, in the given circumstances, well aware that the above action would not prove effective.

42. First, if the Commission "monitored its own contracts with the lead contractor", it should have reasonably been aware of the terms of the takeover, namely, that Soges would not be required to make all the payments to experts after the takeover, and that some payments would remain under the direct responsibility of Gruppo Soges. Second, when the Commission was asked to endorse the assignment agreement concluded between Gruppo Soges and Soges, it was informed that Gruppo Soges had financial problems. Third, the Commission, which had a number of contracts with Gruppo Soges[10], was reasonably aware that its contractor had been declared bankrupt by an Italian court on 27 November 2008. The above elements clearly indicate that there was little hope for the experts who were not paid before the takeover to be paid by Soges or Gruppo Soges afterwards. The Ombudsman did not therefore see why the Commission paid Soges the final payment for the Project.

43. In this regard, the Ombudsman did not consider that the Commission could rely on the obvious fact that it had no direct contractual relationship with the experts, including the complainant, and at the same time comply with its contractual obligation towards the lead contractor.

44. In this respect, the Ombudsman noted that the Commission paid the lead contractor for two invoices[11] relating to the complainant's services. He understood that the effective purpose of the above payment ('effet utile') was to compensate the complainant for the work he had performed under the Contract. In procedural terms, the Commission appeared to have acted correctly by making the above payment to the lead contractor in accordance with the Contract. However, the Ombudsman noted that the sums involved were, at least in part, not used for the assigned purpose because the complainant did not receive the full payment due to him for his work on the Project. Given that the 'effet utile' of the payment was thus not fulfilled, the Ombudsman considered that the Commission was wrong to pay only the above amount.

45. Moreover, the Ombudsman pointed out that by actively requesting its contractors to act fairly towards experts involved in EU-financed projects, the Commission itself acts fairly[12]. Even if the Commission has no direct contractual relationship with such experts, the extent to which its contractual partners have or have not behaved fairly should play an essential role in the Commission's assessment of whether or not the contract has been executed correctly.

46. In sum, the Ombudsman took the view that it was not enough for the Commission to inform the lead contractor by letter(s) and in rather vague terms that it should respect its financial obligations towards the sub-contractors. The Commission had other means at its disposal because it was a party to the Contract with the lead contractor. In this respect, the Ombudsman noted that Article 29(8) of the General conditions of the contract provided that the Commission could suspend the payments due to the lead contractor in any situation for which the latter was responsible and which could have adversely impacted on the execution of the Project. In its letter dated 10 November 2009, and addressed to the complainant, the Commission itself admitted that "if the relationship between the contractors and subcontractors impacts negatively on the performance of the services provided, the Commission can envisage sanctions. These sanctions can consist of financial penalties and even the cancellation of the contract"[13]. Finally, according to point 7(5) of the Terms of Reference of the contract, "the contractor shall take all measures necessary in order to ensure that the experts have the required support at their disposal at all times… in order to accomplish their mission. It should regularly transfer funding to Morocco to ensure the execution of the activities outlined in the contract and the regular payment of its staff"[14].

47. In light of the above, the Ombudsman made the provisional finding that, by failing to support the complainant's claim for payment, the Commission did not act solicitously. This could amount to an instance of maladministration. The Ombudsman therefore made the proposal for a friendly solution reproduced below, in accordance with Article 3(5) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman:

"Taking into account the Ombudsman's findings, the Commission could require Soges to make the outstanding payment to the complainant."

The arguments presented to the Ombudsman after his friendly solution proposal

48. In its reply to the Ombudsman's proposal for a friendly solution, the Commission stated that it accepted that proposal. It attached to its reply copies of its letters dated 23 March 2011 and 11 May 2011, respectively. On 23 March 2011, the Commission queried Soges about its refusal to pay the complainant. Soges replied by letter that same day[15]. In its reply, Soges reiterated that it had executed all its obligations arising from the project. Moreover, Soges pointed out that it did not understand why the Commission chose to take a stand on a dispute between private persons. It also noted that the complainant has neither initiated civil proceedings against Soges nor submitted its request for payment directly to the liquidator of Gruppo Soges. However, Soges decided to consult an external legal consultant in order to enquire about the possibility of satisfying the complainant's claim. Following this answer, the Commission sent Soges another letter on 11 May 2011. In this letter, it formally requested Soges to proceed to effect the outstanding payment to the complainant in the following terms: "Des lors, et à la demande du Médiateur nous vous invitons à régler de façon extra-judiciaire les factures du [plaignant] au titre de ses honoraires restés impayés". According to the Commission, Soges had not replied to the Commission's above request by the time the latter sent its reply to the Ombudsman's friendly solution proposal.

49. The Commission further noted that it did not see why it could not have relied on the assurances given by the Italian authorities in charge of the liquidation concerning the terms of the takeover, namely, that the rights of creditors would be protected. The Commission accepted the change of lead contractor for the project only after it had received the above assurances from the Italian authorities. Moreover, the Commission suspended payments to Soges when there were reasons to believe that the situation could adversely affect the execution of the project. It resumed these payments only on the basis of the above assurances. Subsequently, the Commission did not have grounds to suspend any payment, given that the lead contractor fulfilled its duties.

50. The Commission finally noted that it could not intervene in the private contractual relationship between the complainant and Soges and was unaware of the contractual clauses between the lead contractor and the subcontractors. Moreover, "the Commission has no right to ensure that experts are paid out of the money transferred to its contractors". Once the Commission makes payment, it is the contractor's responsibility to ensure the timely payment of experts.

51. In his observations on the Commission's reply to the Ombudsman's proposal for a friendly solution, the complainant stated that, on 10 July 2011, he received from Soges a copy of the letter that the latter had sent to the EU Delegation to Morocco[16]. In that letter, Soges proposed to compensate the complainant for the unpaid missions under the Project by overpaying him for new services that the complainant would perform for Soges in the framework of a future (presumably EU) project[17]. The complainant stated that he was "outraged that such proposals, almost unlawful, could be made to him and to the Commission". The complainant asked to be informed of the Delegation's reaction to that letter. The complainant also noted that, in its letter of 23 March 2011, Soges had promised to provide the Commission with the detailed opinion of the external legal consultant concerning the outstanding payment to the complainant. However, it failed to do so.

52. On 19 January 2012, the Commission completed its above reply to the Ombudsman's proposal for a friendly solution, following the Ombudsman's request to that effect[18]. The Commission first confirmed that Soges's letter of 10 July 2011 to which the complainant referred in his observations constituted a reply to the Commission's letter to Soges dated 11 May 2011. In its letter, Soges expressed its willingness to find a solution to the complainant's situation. This was, in the Commission's view, positive. However, according to the Commission, Soges did not propose "any clear-cut final solution" to the issue which apparently depended on the external legal advice it would receive.

53. The Commission took the view that Soges's reply of 10 July 2011 cannot be regarded as an appropriate response to an invitation to find a non-judicial solution to the matter for two reasons. First, Soges proposed to pay the complainant as requested by the Commission but only if the external legal advice to come were to "authorise" this payment. In the Commission's view, this condition is itself contrary to the principle of amicable settlement of the issue. Second, if the legal advice were to forbid the requested payment from being made, the alternative solution which Soges proposed consists in the complainant overcharging it for future hypothetical services he would perform for Soges. The Commission pointed out that it could not endorse such a proposal which is based on artificial overcharging of future, uncertain services.

54. In the Commission's view, Soges's reply of 10 July 2011 constitutes "at most an intermediary response to its letter and a possible first step towards a settlement of the pending dispute between Soges and the complainant". The Commission added that it did not receive any other information on the outcome of Soges's legal consultation or any other proposal.

55. The Commission stated that it would continue its endeavours to facilitate the achievement of a final resolution of the matter by reminding Soges of its promises. It would also urge it to implement its proposals in order to satisfy the complainant's claim. However, since it has no contractual relationship with the complainant, the Commission cannot compel Soges to comply with its contractual obligations towards the complainant.

56. In his observations on the Commission's above reply, the complainant commended the efforts made by the EU Delegation to Morocco in order to achieve a positive outcome to his complaint. However, he contested the Commission's arguments (i) that it could not intervene in the private contractual relationship between Soges and him, and (ii) that it was unaware of the contractual clauses between the lead contractor and the experts. In this respect, he pointed out that the Delegation ensured the "effective management" of the project, because it agreed to the nomination of experts, identified their missions and accepted their work. The complainant concluded that it would only be fair for him to be paid for his work for the project.

57. In his further correspondence of 2 April 2012, the complainant stated that, in the meantime, he had received copies of a new exchange of correspondence between the Commission and Soges[19]. According to the complainant, on 20 February 2012, the EU Delegation to Morocco sent another letter to Soges requesting it to make the outstanding payment to the complainant. By letter of 14 March 2012, Soges refused to do so. In this respect, it argued that (i) the Commission paid Gruppo Soges and not Soges for the complainant's work for the project and thus, (ii) the Commission's insistence that Soges pay the complainant was inappropriate. The complainant reiterated that the Delegation ensured the actual management of the project and it must, therefore, make sure that he gets paid for his work.

The Ombudsman's assessment after his friendly solution proposal

58. The Ombudsman notes that, following his proposal for a friendly solution and his further questions to the Commission, the latter entered into contact with Soges and sent it two formal and persuasive letters (on 11 May 2011 and 20 February 2012), in which it clearly required Soges to pay the complainant. The Ombudsman considers that sending such letters to Soges constituted adequate action on the Commission's part in reply to the Ombudsman's proposal for a friendly solution.

59. Moreover, in its reply to the Ombudsman's proposal for a friendly solution, the Commission stated that it accepted it and committed itself to continuing its endeavours to help solve the matter by reminding Soges of its obligations to pay the complainant, without limiting its endeavours in time. The Ombudsman therefore understands that the Commission will keep urging Soges to make the outstanding payment to the complainant, despite the negative replies received so far. It is reasonable to expect that the Commission will use all means at its disposal to convince Soges to change its position. Moreover, the Ombudsman trusts that the Commission will inform him and the complainant of the outcome of its future contacts with Soges. In this respect, the Ombudsman will make a further remark below.

60. In light of the Commission's commitment outlined above, the Ombudsman has decided to close the case.

B. Conclusion

On the basis of his inquiry into this complaint, the Ombudsman closes it with the following conclusion:

No further inquiries are justified.

The complainant and the Commission will be informed of this decision.

Further remark

The Ombudsman trusts that, despite the negative replies it has received from Soges so far, the Commission will, in its future contacts with Soges, continue urging it to make the outstanding payment to the complainant. It is reasonable to expect that the Commission will use all means at its disposal to convince Soges to change its uncooperative position. Moreover, the Ombudsman trusts that the Commission will inform him and the complainant of the outcome of its future contacts with Soges.

 

P. Nikiforos Diamandouros

Done in Strasbourg on 9 July 2012

---

[1] In French: "Gruppos Soges nous a indiqué une liste de dettes qui devaient être relevées par Soges, tandis que d'autres dettes, (...) restaient chez Gruppo Soges qui s'engageait à les payer directement."

[2] Order of 29 June 2010, T-515/08, Mauerhofer v Commission, not yet published.

[3] Article 4.3 of the General conditions of the contract provides that "the contract between the lead contractor and the subcontractor does not create contractual relationships between the subcontractor and the Commission."

[4] In French: "(...) le montant de 23 500 EUR réclamé par le plaignant à Soges ne se reflète pas par un paiement d'un montant équivalent de la Commission à Soges. La Commission sait pour quelles prestations elle a rétribué Soges et, entre autres, pour les prestations exécutés par le plaignant, mais rien de plus."

[5] In this respect, the Ombudsman notes that he has received another complaint from an expert working on a different EU project. The execution of this latter project was subject to another contract concluded by the Commission and Gruppo Soges and subsequently taken over by Soges (complaint 1811/2009/(BB)FOR).

[6] Article 7.6 of the Contract reads as follows: (in French) "Toute modification de la composition du consortium sans le consentement préalable du pouvoir adjudicateur est considérée comme un défaut d'exécution du marché."

[7] The amendment to the original contract between the Commission, Gruppos Soges and Soges read as follows: "Le remplacement de Gruppo Soges par Soges est effectué (...) sur la base des assurances reçues du liquidateur de Gruppo Soges (...) qui certifie que le "Contrat de louage d'entreprise comprenant un engagement a formuler une offre irrévocable d'achat" établi le 28 mai 2008 entre Gruppo Soges et Soges est conforme au droit et lois en vigueur, en en particulier avec les règles concernant la liquidation des sociétés et celles sur la protection des droits des créditeurs."

[8] In French: "Nous tenons donc a rappeler vos obligations suite a la procédure dite de "liquidation administrativa coatta" dont la société Gruppo Soges a fait l'objet, en particulier l'obligation de rémunérer tous les experts qui on travaille dans le cadre du contrat."

[9] In French: "Nous tenons aussi à rappeler que la Commission vous a verse 72.765,00 Euros au titre des honoraires de M. Tribillon objet des factures Soges Spa n° 130 et 397."

[10] As stated by the Commission in its opinion (paragraph 23 of the friendly solution).

[11] Referred to in the Commission's letter dated 25 August 2010.

[12] Article 11 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour provides that "officials shall act impartially, fairly and reasonably." Furthermore, the Ombudsman has consistently taken the following view: "although the Commission is acting in conformity with the law when it does not intervene in disputes between contractors and sub-contractors, the impression that the sub-contractors are left with should not be underestimated. In line with the Commission's endeavours to bring Europe closer to citizens and to inspire them with confidence in the EU and its institutions, the Ombudsman considers it useful for the Commission to take whatever measures possible in order to avoid situations that leave citizens with an unjustified negative impression of the EU institutions." (Taken from the Ombudsman's decision on his own-initiative inquiry OI/1/2006/TN, available on his website)

[13] In French: "dans le cas ou la relation entre le contractant et les sous-traitants influence négativement la performance des services fournis, la Commission peut envisager des sanctions. Ces sanctions peuvent prendre la forme de pénalités financiers et aller jusqu'à la résiliation du contrat."

[14] In French: "L'attributaire prendra toutes les mesures nécessaires pour que ses experts aient en permanence a leur disposition les appuis (...) requis pour l'accomplissement de leur mission. Il devra effectuer un transfert régulier des fonds au Maroc pour l'exécution des activités prévues dans le contrat et assurer le paiement régulier de son personnel."

[15] The Commission enclosed with its opinion a copy of that reply.

[16] The complainant enclosed a copy of this letter with its observations.

[17] In French: "Dans le cadre d'une collaboration avec [le plaignant], sur des projets futurs, nous comptons proposer [au plaignant] des honoraires supérieurs au standard ordinaires et habituelles, afin d'atteindre l'obtention par le plaignant, d'une recette plus haute comme appui partiel a l'impossibilité d'un totale recouvrement des créances envers l'original et unique entreprise débitrice Gruppo Soges".

[18] The Ombudsman requested the Commission a) to explain whether Soges's letter to the EU Delegation to Morocco dated 10 July 2011 constitutes, in the Commission's view, an appropriate reply to its letter of 11 May 2011 and, if yes, b) to explain what further steps, if any, the Commission took or intends to take in this respect.

[19] The complainant did not provide copies of this exchange of correspondence.