Dear Mrs S.,

On 10 August 2000, you lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman concerning the European Commission's failure to reply to your letters and to assist you in a dispute with the University of Patras.

On 31 August 2000, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The European Commission sent its opinion on 4 December 2000 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. I received your observations on 17 January 2001.

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

THE COMPLAINT

During the second semester of the academic year 1997-1998, the complainant taught European Law at the University of Patras (hereafter the University). This tuition was given in the framework of the Jean Monnet Project which foresaw a Community funding. The complainant had been hired by the University as an expert.

At the end of her contract, the complainant was informed that the University was unable to pay her the outstanding remuneration (about 2,325 €). The University put forward that the payment of the grant by the Commission had been abruptly interrupted. It is only at a later stage that the complainant got to know that the alleged interruption of the payments originated in the University's failure to comply with the funding contract. The European Commission had granted funds for the creation of a Jean Monnet Chair in European Law. However it turned out that the proposed holder of Chair did not meet the requirements of the contract.

In March 2000, considering that the Commission, by interrupting the payments and cancelling the contract, bore some responsibility in her situation, the complainant asked the institution to assist her in her dispute with the University.

The complainant did not obtain any reply. On 10 August 2000 she therefore lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman and made following allegations:

• The Commission failed to reply to her letters.
• When it terminated the contract with the University, the Commission failed to consider the indirect consequences of its action on third parties.
• To sort out the situation, the Commission should request a financial breakdown for the use of the awarded funds made by the University.

THE INQUIRY

The European Commission's opinion

The opinion of the European Commission on the complaint was in summary the following:

The complainant's letter was replied to on 4 September 2000, shortly before the Commission was informed of the present complaint. The Commission regretted the delay in replying but explained that the complainant's request had made it necessary to seek further information from the University. Although the University's reply to the Commission was not satisfying, the complainant received an answer.

The creation of a Jean Monnet Chair in European Law at the University foresaw the payment by the European Commission of an annual grant amounting to 15,000 €. At the end of the academic year 1997-1998, the Commission found out that the holder of the Jean Monnet Chair in European Law was in fact a professor of Economics. Thus he could not, as required by the contract, give the courses himself. Three external experts, including the complainant, had been hired to do it.

The breach of contract led the Commission to reconsider the award of the grant. Following a negotiation with the University, the Jean Monnet Chair was transformed into three modules for which the Commission was to pay an annual grant of 4,000 € per module. The new yearly grant had already been paid for the academic year 1997-1998 given that it matched the first payment made under the former Jean Monnet Chair. The payment of the grants for the following academic years were delayed because of the University's failure to provide the necessary supporting evidence in time.

Regarding its responsibility, the Commission held that the funding contract had not been cancelled but only modified. It also underlined that there was no contract between the professors and the Commission. The complainant would have to seek redress at the national level on the basis of her working contract with the University. The grant had been fully paid for the academic year of concern to the complainant. The University did not mention any financial problems stemming from the reduction of the grant from 15,000 € to 12,000 € further to the modification of the contract.

Regarding the report and financial breakdown, the Commission explained that they had been supplied by the University for the academic year 1997-1998. The Commission however faced major difficulties in obtaining reports and the financial breakdowns for subsequent years as well as for the three modules of 1997. Finally all the documents were only sent on 24 October 2000 and approved by the Commission. The Commission therefore decided that it would not seek to recover the already awarded funds and that it would make the payment of 24,000 € for the years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000.

The complainant's observations

The European Ombudsman forwarded the European Commission's opinion to the complainant with an invitation to make observations. In her reply of 15 January 2001, the complainant stated the following:

Regarding the reply the Commission claimed to have sent on 4 September 2000, the complainant noted that it surprisingly arrived only one month afterwards and that it failed to address all her claims against the University.

The whole funding of a Jean Monnet Chair at the University had started wrongly. The University appointed the wrong professor, and the Commission failed to check his qualifications.

The University had not provided the Commission with a financial breakdown for 1997-1998. The Commission neither complained about this situation nor did it request the University to provide it with the financial breakdown. The Commission has dealt with the whole case carelessly. It failed to check the use of the first payment of 12,000 € made for the Jean Monnet Chair. Furthermore, it has not reacted to the claim of the University according to which the smaller grant would not allow to pay for expenses already made for the functioning of the Jean Monnet Chair.

In summary, the complainant considers that the Commission is co-responsible for the University's failure to pay her the outstanding sums. The Commission should therefore make sure that the University uses the 24,000 € awarded for the years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 to pay her.

THE DECISION

1 The Commission's failure to reply to the complainant's letters

1.1 The complainant alleged that the Commission failed to reply to her letters in which she sought assistance in the framework of a dispute with the University of Patras.

1.2 The Commission informed the Ombudsman that it had replied on 4 September 2000, shortly before it was made aware of the present complaint. It however regretted the delay in replying to the complainant explaining that it was due to actions it had taken with the University.

1.3 The Ombudsman notes that in its reply the Commission does not address all the complainant's claims made in her letter to the Commission of 20 March 2000. The information requested by the complainant however appear to have been communicated to the Commission by the University only on 24 October 2000 and were therefore not available when the Commission's reply was sent. The complainant's claims have now been dealt with in the present inquiry.

1.4 In view of the above, the Ombudsman has found no evidence of maladministration as regards this aspect of the case.

2 The Commission's failure to take into consideration the consequences of the termination of the funding contract

2.1 The complainant alleged that when it terminated the funding contract with the University, the Commission failed to consider the indirect consequences of its action on third parties.

2.2 The Commission explained that the funding contract had only been modified and not terminated. The University of Patras had been paid 80% of the grant originally foreseen. The complainant would have to seek national ways of appeal in order to be paid in accordance with the working contract she concluded with the University.

2.3 The Ombudsman notes that according to the general conditions for the creation of a Jean Monnet Chair, the holder of the chair should carry out all the tuition himself. Applications which foresee to split up the tuition among professors or to call for external professors are to be considered inadmissible. The working contract concluded by the University with the complainant should therefore not have existed and was made in breach of the funding contract.

2.4 The complainant considered that the full grant should have been paid to the University, irrespective of the irregularities, in order to allow the University to honour contracts it concluded with third parties.

2.5 The Ombudsman considers that the explanation given by the Commission regarding the revision and lowering of the grant appears to comply with principles of sound financial management of Community funds. There are no obvious reasons to consider that the Commission is responsible for the commitments the University took towards third parties in breach of the funding contract. As regards this aspect of the case no instance of maladministration has been found.

3 The request for financial breakdowns to control the use of awarded funds

3.1 The complainant claimed that the Commission should have controlled the use of awarded funds by requesting the financial breakdowns from the University.

3.2 The Commission explained that despite repeated requests, the University had only supplied the relevant financial breakdowns on 24 October 2000. These documents were considered to be satisfying and the funds that had been withheld were therefore to be paid to the University.

3.3 The checks requested by the complainant appear to have been carried out in the framework of the controls on the use of grants. The delays in the procedure are not attributable to the Commission. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of maladministration as regards this aspect of the case.

4 Conclusion

On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Commission. The Ombudsman has therefore decided to close the case.

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

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN