Dear Mr L.,
On 26 November 1998 you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman on behalf of NIBRA (Nederlands Instituut voor Brandweer en Rampenbestrijding) concerning the alleged failure of DG XI to pay a part of the invoice of NIBRA for the organisation in 1996 of the European fire service summer course.
On 14 December 1998, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 16 February 1999 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. On 31 March 1999, I received your observations on the Commission's opinion. On 22 November 1999 you wrote to me inquiring about the outcome of your complaint. I informed you on 4 January 2000 that the inquiry into your complaint was still pending.
I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made. I apologise for the time it has taken to deal with your complaint.

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant the relevant facts were as follows:
The complainant is Director of the Nederlands Instituut voor Brandweer en Rampenbestrijding (NIBRA - Dutch Institute for Firebrigade and Disaster Prevention) which organised in 1996 the European fire service summer course. The complainant alleged that DG XI (Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection) had not paid a part of the bill (94.000 Dutch guilders) for the summer course, whereas the costs of the same summer course organised in 1995 had been reimbursed.
On 9 July 1997, the complainant wrote to the Commission with regard to the unpaid invoice. The Commission replied on 2 September 1997 that there were no possibilities to cover other expenses related to the summer course 1996 at the exception of the exchange of Community experts itself. The Commission had discussed the matter with ISPU (Institut Supérieur pour la planification d'urgence) which was in charge of the management of the exchange system of experts until 30 April 1997. The Commission regretted that the situation had not been settled and clarified earlier between the complainant and ISPU.
The complainant therefore complained to the Ombudsman alleging that, contrary to the Commission's promises, DG XI refused to pay a part of the bill for the 1996 summer course.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion
In its opinion, the Commission observed that in the course of 1995, its civil protection unit had been in contact with the complainant with regard to the "third summer course for fire services". The complainant informed the Commission services of its intention to ask a financial contribution from the Commission for the organisation of this event in June 1996 (like previously for the summer courses in 1993 and 1994).
On 1 December 1995, the complainant sent to the civil protection unit of the Commission a budget proposal. However since December 1995, the Commission informed the complainant by phone that the budget line B4-3300 (civil protection and urgent environmental situations) had not received credits for the year 1996 and that therefore no financial contribution for the organisation of the event could be granted.
Given however the importance and interest of this event, the complainant decided to maintain the initiative and to let profit a certain number of European experts from the summer course through the exchange system of experts. This system allows the secondment of national experts from their administrations, for all aspects related to civil protection, to administrations from other Member States in order to follow or to give courses or to acquire an experience in another civil protection service.
The complainant then contacted the Institut Supérieur pour la planification d'urgence (ISPU) in Florival in order to program the exchange.
The subvention contract between ISPU and the Commission running at that time (B4-3300/94-21) took in charge the sending of 20 European experts to the summer course in Arnhem from 24 to 28 June 1996.
The Commission observed that the subvention contract signed between ISPU and the Commission never mentioned the intervention of the complainant who had only contractual and financial relations with ISPU and is the latter's subcontractor. The choice of the complainant and the amount of financial contribution were within the appraisal of ISPU.
The Commission therefore concluded that it could not be alleged that it had failed to pay a bill of which it was not the addressee and which was emitted by a company with whom it had no contractual relation.
The complainant's observations
The complainant maintained the complaint and observed that the non-payment of a financial contribution was in contradiction with the Commission's initial promises to fund the summer course. The complainant observed that it was entitled to a financial contribution because a) the Commission had itself referred to the contract partner, ISPU, which could not pay because it had not received enough budget from the Commission, b) the Commission was still able to fund in the middle of 1996, c) after the second summer course the Commission had expressed its willingness to fund the third summer course, and d) the fourth European fire service summer course appeared to have been funded.

THE DECISION

1 The alleged refusal of the Commission to pay for the 1996 summer course
1.1 The complainant alleged that, contrary to the initial Commission's promises, DG XI refused to pay a part of the bill for the European fire service summer course which the complainant organised in 1996. The Commission observed that the budget line B4-3300 (civil protection and urgent environmental situations) had not received credits for the year 1996 and that therefore no financial contribution could be granted. The Commission also stated that the subvention contract signed between ISPU and the Commission never mentioned the intervention of the complainant who had only contractual and financial relations with ISPU and is the latter's subcontractor. The choice of the complainant and the amount of financial contribution were within the appraisal of ISPU. The Commission therefore concluded that it could not be alleged that it had failed to pay a bill of which it was not the addressee and which was emitted by a company with whom it had no contractual relations.
1.2 The Ombudsman considers that a financial participation of the Commission in the costs of an event can only be granted when there exists a legal basis for such a funding: There is a formal procedure to be followed in order to obtain financial aid from the Commission, consisting of various phases which are the application for funding, the evaluation of the applications, the selection of the successful applications and the decision by which the Commission undertakes to grant a financial contribution and which is communicated to the applicant.
1.3 However, in the present case the Ombudsman notes that the complainant did not sustain his claim for a financial contribution for the 1996 summer course with documentary evidence. The complainant has not provided the Ombudsman with any written document from which it appears that the Commission took the commitment to financially participate in the 1996 summer course. The complainant merely referred to promises made by the Commission services and to the fact that the 1995 summer course had received funding from the Commission.
1.4 The Ombudsman observes that the Commission had a subvention contract with ISPU and not with the complainant, and that the latter had only contractual and financial relations with ISPU. The financial claim of the complainant is therefore a question which falls within the framework of the financial relations between ISPU and the complainant. On basis of the above considerations, the Ombudsman found no instance of maladministration with regard to the Commission's refusal to pay a part of the bill for the 1996 European fire service summer course.
2 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