Dear Mr P.,

On 17 January 2002, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission, concerning inconsistencies contained in an IST contract signed with Schlumberger Industries S.A. (France), the Université catholique de Louvain (Belgium), the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (Spain) and the École Nationale Supérieure des Télécommunications (France).

On 28 February 2002, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 18 April 2002 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. No observations appear to 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 company Schlumberger Industries S.A. (France), together with the Université catholique de Louvain (Belgium), the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (Spain) and the École Nationale Supérieure des Télécommunications (France), entered into an IST (Information Society Technologies) contract with the Commission in order to receive funds for a project.

The contract itself, as well as Annex I were negotiated with the Commission. Annex II is a standard annex for all IST contracts. The contract was signed in December 1999 and the project started in March 2000. On 22 March 2001, the Commission informed the contracting parties that there was an inconsistency between the contract itself and the standard part (Annex II). In fact, the latter excluded the funding of items that had been negotiated and agreed in the contract and in Annex I.

Despite several contacts with the complainant, the Commission failed to find an acceptable solution. The complainant therefore lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman. He alleged that the Commission failed to propose an acceptable solution for the problem in the contract and to inform him of the legal impediments to change from a "Thematic Network" (TN) to a "Accompanying Measures" (AM) contract.

The complainant claimed a solution leading to the acceptance of the disputed costs and the conclusion of a workable contract.

THE INQUIRY

The European Commission's opinion

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

The complainant's allegations regarding the SPRING project shall not be contested. Although it was not mentioned in the complaint, the same remarks about the unfortunate situation caused by mutual misunderstandings, apply in a contract for NetAGES.

When the difficulties arising from the contract became apparent, the Commission sought to offer the SPRING consortium a solution. No agreement could be found between the parties. Neither of the options considered was suitable in the present case. As requested by the complainant, the Commission shall therefore change the present contract to an AM contract which will enable all costs incurred by the project to be taken into consideration.

"The offer will be presented to the consortium as soon as the internal procedures are completed. A corrigendum to the Commission's selection decision will be needed and this procedure shall be launched without undue delay."

The same solution was proposed in the case of NetAGES.

In order to avoid similar situations in the future, the Commission intends to reduce the number of standard contracts and to simplify them.

The complainant's observations

The European Ombudsman forwarded the Commission's opinion to the complainant with an invitation to make observations. On 4 June 2002, the complainant orally informed the Ombudsman's services, that the Commission's offer completely satisfied his claim and that he would inform the Commission thereof very shortly.

THE DECISION

1 Failure to find a solution to the problem

1.1 The complainant alleged that the Commission failed to propose an acceptable solution for the problem in the contract and to inform him of the legal impediments to change from a "Thematic Network" (TN) to an "Accompanying Measures" (AM) contract.

1.2 The Commission did not contest the complainant's allegations. It informed the Ombudsman that after the completion of internal procedures it would make the complainant an offer allowing all the costs incurred by the project to be considered eligible for funding.

1.3 The Ombudsman notes that the Commission has undertaken to offer the complainant a solution satisfying his claim. The Ombudsman therefore considers that the Commission has taken steps to settle the matter and thereby satisfied the complainant.

2 Conclusion

It appears from the Commission's comments that the European Commission has taken steps to settle the matter and satisfy the complainant. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

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

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN