Dear Mr F.,

On 2 October 2000, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman on behalf of Svart på Vitt HB, relating to an environmental project in El Salvador, financed by the European Commission, for which you were the team leader.

On 12 October 2000, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 22 January 2001. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 26 February 2001. On 13 March 2001, I acknowledged receipt of your observations. On 19 April 2001, I requested further information from the Commission. The Commission sent its second opinion on 23 May 2001. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 28 June 2001. On 12 July 2001, I requested further information from the Commission. The Commission sent its third opinion on 1 October 2001. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 16 November 2001.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman in October 2000. The complaint concerned a project for the development of an environmental programme in El Salvador for which the complainant had been the team leader. The programme was financed by the European Commission who had a framework agreement with the company ALAnet for the performance of the project.

The Commission asked the complainant in May/June 1998 to be the team leader of the project in El Salvador. The complainant immediately started to prepare for the project, in co-operation with the Commission, as he was supposed to leave for El Salvador as soon as possible. However, the issuing of the contract "la Commande" governing the project was delayed and the complainant had to start preparing the project without the contract. When the complainant was informed later by ALAnet that it would probably cause problems that he was working without a contract, he contacted the Commission. The Commission assured him that it was not a problem and that the days would be rearranged so that days worked before the contract would be compensated by other days of the mission. The Commission official assured the complainant that she and ALAnet would be very flexible on this point, that a corrigendum would be issued and further that "this is nothing new, happens everyday". The contract finally arrived when only a few days remained before the trip to El Salvador. It foresaw 10 days of preparatory work for the complainant.

In January 1999, the complainant sent the final invoice to ALAnet and a request for further information was also replied to by the complainant. In May/June 1999, ALAnet informed the complainant that the Commission would now pay him. The complainant could however not be paid for the work performed in Europe as it was not covered by the contract. As the complainant considered that he had an agreement with the responsible Commission official regarding preparatory work in Europe, he contacted her successor, but he was not able to help him. The complainant then wrote and also tried to visit the responsible official, who was now located at the Commission's office in Guatemala. Despite this, the complainant never managed to get in contact with her.

The complainant then turned to the Ombudsman. The complainant alleged that the case had been unnecessarily delayed by the Commission and that the Commission had been unwilling to supply information to the complainant. The complainant further claimed the complete agreed payment with compensation for the decrease of value of the Euro since the invoice should have been paid.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion, the Commission initially stated that its framework agreement was with ALAnet and that no contractual link existed between itself and the complainant. According to the Commission, after ALAnet had submitted its final invoice, which had been paid by the Commission, ALAnet requested an additional payment of ten days work performed by the complainant on the final report. The Commission did not see any reason to pay an extra ten days for work on the final report and further no addendum had been issued to the contract regarding extra days of work. The Commission therefore refused the additional payment.

The Commission considered that it had handled the matter according to the framework agreement with ALAnet who was responsible for the contacts with the complainant. It regretted that the complainant was not satisfied in this regard. The Commission stated that it was however evident from the documents in the complaint, that the complainant had had direct contacts with the Commission concerning his preparatory work. The Commission considered it reasonable that the complainant worked a few days on preparing the mission before the contract was signed. Therefore, since the complainant performed the work in good faith and upon instructions from the Commission, the Commission declared itself ready to pay the complainant if supporting documents of the work performed were submitted.

The Commission finally stated that it would contact the complainant and ALAnet in order to find a solution. It regretted however that it would not be possible to compensate for the decrease of value of the Euro.

The complainant's observations

In his observations, the complainant was positive regarding the fact that the Commission admitted that preparatory work was performed following instructions from the Commission. The complainant however argued that the Commission omitted to respond to the fact that it was responsible for the delay in this matter and that the responsible Commission official should have issued a corrigendum. Moreover, the complainant stated that the mission required a considerable amount of preparatory work and not only "a few days" as mentioned by the Commission. The preparatory work performed in Europe easily amounted to the ten days foreseen in the contract and the complainant described in detail what it had consisted of. The complainant claimed full payment but stated that he withdrew his claim for compensation for the decrease of value of the Euro.

Further inquiries

After careful consideration of the Commission's opinion and the complainant's observations, it appeared that further inquiries were necessary. The Ombudsman therefore firstly asked the Commission to comment on the complainant's allegation of unnecessary delay and unwillingness to supply information. Secondly, the Ombudsman asked the Commission if it had contacted the complainant, as mentioned in its opinion, and if so, the result thereof.

The Commission's second opinion

In its second opinion, the Commission explained that, as regards the delay in issuing the contract, several Directorates-General had co-operated in the matter and that External Relations DG had made an overhaul of the contract conditions and had made corrections. The Commission apologised for the delay. Regarding the final invoice, the Commission put forward that it had paid ALAnet's final invoice within the contractual time period. As regards the requests for information from the complainant, the Commission stated that it had informed the complainant that his request was being dealt with and further that it was trying to settle the matter with ALAnet. For further information, the complainant was invited to turn to ALAnet.

Concerning payment to the complainant, the Commission stated that, in his observations to the Ombudsman, the complainant justified the preparatory work performed and that the procedure for issuing payment had commenced.

The complainant's observations on the Commission's second opinion

In his observations on the Commission's second opinion, the complainant maintained his complaint. He stated that it was still unclear if the Commission intended to pay him in full, i.e. for ten days of work, or only for a few days of work. The complainant claimed full payment.

Following the Commission's second opinion and the complainant's observations thereupon, the Ombudsman wrote again to the Commission to ask it if, and to what extent, it had issued payment to the complainant.

The Commission's third opinion

In its third opinion, the Commission informed the Ombudsman that the matter had now been settled with the complainant. The Commission and the complainant had signed an agreement for payment of € 3,560 which had been transferred to the complainant's bank account on 27 August 2001. The Commission enclosed the agreement and the bank order.

The complainant's observations on the Commission's third opinion

In his observations on the Commission's third opinion, the complainant stated that he was happy to inform the Ombudsman that he had no objections to the Commission's opinion. He confirmed that the matter had now been settled and that he had no further claims or complaints against the Commission. Finally, the complainant thanked the Ombudsman for his work in this matter.

THE DECISION

1 Alleged delay and unwillingness to supply information

1.1 The complaint concerned a project for the development of an environmental programme in El Salvador for which the complainant had been the team leader. A dispute arose concerning the complainant's final invoice. The complainant alleged that the case had been unnecessarily delayed by the Commission and that the Commission had been unwilling to supply information to the complainant.

1.2 The Commission explained that, as regards the delay in issuing the contract, several Directorates-General had co-operated in the matter and that External Relations DG had made an overhaul of the contract conditions and had made corrections. The Commission apologised for the delay. Regarding the final invoice, the Commission put forward that it had paid ALAnet's final invoice within the contractual time period. As regards the requests for information from the complainant, the Commission stated that it had informed the complainant that his request was being dealt with and further that it was trying to settle the matter with ALAnet. For further information, the complainant was invited to turn to ALAnet.

1.3 It appears from the Commission's third opinion and the complainant's observations thereupon, that the complainant considers the matter settled and that he has no further claim or complaint against the Commission. The Ombudsman does therefore not find it necessary to inquire further into this aspect of the case.

2 The claimed payment

2.1 In his complaint, the complainant claimed the complete agreed payment with compensation for the decrease of value of the Euro since the invoice should have been paid. In his observations, the complainant withdrew his claim for compensation for the decrease of value of the Euro.

2.2 In the Commission's first and second opinions it explained why the complainant had not been paid but declared itself ready to pay the complainant. In its third opinion, the Commission informed the Ombudsman that an agreement for payment of € 3,560 to the complainant, had been signed by the Commission and the complainant.

2.3 In his observations on the Commission's third opinion, the complainant stated that he had no objections to the Commission's opinion and that the matter had now been settled. He further thanked the Ombudsman for his work in this matter.

2.4 It appears that the Commission has now paid the claimed amount to the full satisfaction of the complainant. The Ombudsman therefore considers that the Commission has taken steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied the complainant.

3 Conclusion

It appears from the Commission’s comments and the complainant's observations that the Commission has taken steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied 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