# Decision of the European Ombudsman on complaint 1495/2000/JMA against the European Commission
- Autor: Defensor del Pueblo Europeo
- Fecha: 2002-03-20T00:00+01:00[Europe/Paris]
- [URL](https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/es/decision/es/1493)
---
Strasbourg, 20 March 2002

Dear Mr S.,

On 14 November 2000, you lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman
on behalf of the consultancy firm, "National Economic Research Associates"
(NERA), against the European Commission. Your complaint concerned the
refusal of the Czech Ministry of Finances to pay 104,000 € for part of
the tasks your firm carried out for a Phare contract, allegedly following
instructions from the Commission services responsible for the implementation
of the Phare programme in the Czech Republic (Phare Prague), on the grounds
that certain amendments to the original contract had not been properly
notified.

On 29 November 2000, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the
European Commission. I received the Commission's opinion on 2 March 2001.
I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations. On 25 April
2001, I received your observations on the Commission's opinion. You wrote
to me on 2 November 2001 asking for information on the Ombudsman's inquiry.
On 14 November 2001, I requested further information from the Commission.
I received the second opinion from the institution on 10 January 2002,
which I forwarded to you, with a further invitation to make observations.
On 13 February 2002, you sent me your observations.

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

THE COMPLAINT
-------------

According to the complainant, the facts were as follows:

The complainant works as a Senior Advisor in the National Economic Research
Associates Inc (NERA), an international economic consultancy specialised
in regulatory and competition issues. On 4 September 1998, NERA was awarded
a contract for the development of new legislation in the field of energy
regulation in the Czech Republic (contract No. CZ9703/0102/0301/0008)
to be financed by the Phare programme, through the Czech Ministry of Finance
(MoF). The contract was established on 2 November 1998 between NERA and
MoF, as Contractor and Contracting Authority, respectively, for the benefit
of the Czech Ministry of Industry and Trade (MIT).

As laid down in the contract, NERA was to provide the services described
in the Terms of Reference (Annex A), using the personnel listed in the
Breakdown of Prices (Annex D). The total amount to be paid was not to
exceed 484,892 ECUs. Payments would be made by MoF, using the funds granted
by Phare Prague, provided that the services had been performed to the
satisfaction of MIT. Proper implementation of the project was to be monitored
through a review group or steering committee made up by representatives
from NERA and the Czech government (MIT, MoF). The complainant was required
to prepare and submit to all parties concerned a monthly progress report
to describe work developments.

Towards the end of 1998, MIT supported by the representatives of Phare
Prague, Messrs Stephen Collins and Roman Gadea, expressed its concern
for the inadequate structure of the project. At a meeting of the project’s
review group in November 1998, it was requested that a higher proportion
of local legal experts be employed. In the Spring of 1999, and as a result
of the changes requested by the Czech authorities on the format and contents
of the project (VZZ-type draft)[(1)](#(1)){#Footnote1},
the complainant reported to the Review Group of 27 January 1999 that
a reallocation of resources appeared necessary. MIT and Phare Prague endorsed
these proposed changes. The situation was acknowledged by the complainant
in a letter of 22 March 1999 to both, MIT and to Phare Prague, and implied
a reallocation of tasks, including an increase in local expertise and
a parallel diminution of the tasks initially assigned to NERA. They did
not involve, however, any extra expense beyond the price agreed in the
contract.

In the complainant's view, the reallocation of personnel inputs and the
completion of the tasks were carried out in the understanding that the
requests by MIT and Phare Prague had created a mutual legal obligation
between the client and the funding agency. Even though Article 15 (3)
of the contract required that amendments to it be agreed in writing only,
there was insufficient time for any such addendum to be prepared and approved
before further work was to be conducted.

The complainant explained that it was the parties' intention that such
an addendum be drafted once the final project had been attained. In the
course of a meeting on 27 July 1999, and with the project already completed,
the complainant pointed out that MIT had agreed that an addendum to the
contract should be submitted, so that the changes in the allocation of
work for the project could be reflected. The proposed addendum was subsequently
presented to the Czech authorities and to Phare Prague on 26 August, and
9 September 1999. The addendum did not exceed the specified budget but
simply amended the hours spent by various personnel.

On 15 September 1999, the contract addendum proposed by the complainant
was rejected by Phare Prague allegedly on the grounds that it did not
correspond to Phare rules. The complainant pointed out that, at the time,
they were unaware of the content of the rules Phare was referring to.

On 28 September 1999, MoF expressed the same opinion. It suggested, however,
an alternative solution whereby the Contracting authority would submit
a further addendum to Phare Prague on NERA's behalf, together with an
explanatory note. MoF set forth the addendum on 14 October 1999. This
initiative was rejected by Phare Prague at the end of December 1999 on
the grounds that it involved the approval of retroactive changes to the
original contract.

As a result of this situation, the complainant's invoice for the last
segment of the project (invoice No. L1276) for an amount of 104,000 EUR
was rejected by the Commission and still remains outstanding.

In summary, the complainant alleged that Phare Prague,

1) failed to inform him that any change to the contract had to be made
through a contract addendum, which should have been previously approved
by the Czech Ministry of Finances.

2) failed to include any reference to any possible change of the contract
either in the Service contract itself or in the Phare General conditions.

3) acted unfairly and with abuse of power by directing the Czech Ministry
of Finances to reject the payment of services provided by his firm to
the Czech Ministry of Industry and Trade.

Accordingly, the complainant claimed that the Commission should authorise
the payment of the remaining 104,000 EUR, as well as the interests on
that sum, and the legal costs resulting from this dispute.

THE INQUIRY
-----------

**The Commission's opinion**   

In its opinion, the Commission first gave some background information
on the operation of the Phare programme, and the role of its different
actors. The institution explained that the programme is implemented on
a decentralised basis, which means that the Czech authorities were responsible
for tendering, contracting and payments, whilst the Commission Delegation
remained responsible only for the supervision of the process, having to
endorse any dossier over 50 000 Euro prior to its implementation.

The institution explained that only the Central Financing and Contracting
Unit (CFCU), based at the Czech Ministry of Finance (MoF), and the complainant
were parties to the contract. The Commission Delegation in Prague therefore
was not a part of it.

In respect of the complainant’s first and second allegations, the Commission
pointed out that Article 15 of the contract clearly stipulated that any
changes had to be confirmed in writing. This obligation was in line with
the criteria laid down in Article 46 of the General Conditions of the
contract (Annex E), which was an integral part of the original contract.
As for the complainant’s third allegation, the Commission expressed its
belief that its Delegation in Prague had not acted unfairly nor had it
abused its power. On the contrary, it had acted in accordance with the
terms of the contract.

The Commission stated that any potential modification of a contract had
to be presented for approval in advance (prior to implementation) to the
Delegation, via the CFCU, in writing as a side letter and/or an addendum
depending on their significance. It stated further that in the case of
an addendum, no action linked to the proposed adjustments could take place
before the written and signed approval by the Delegation was granted.
Any retrospective endorsement was strictly prohibited. The Commission
pointed out that even if the Delegation representatives had been orally
informed of proposed changes in the course of a meeting or otherwise,
any changes to the relevant contract should have been formalised by an
official endorsement in writing by the parties concerned before work was
to be carried out.

The Commission explained that in the past and only in a few exceptional
cases, it may have accepted addenda with minor modifications submitted
a week or two late. Nevertheless, the existence of such exceptions could
not justify NERA not following the rules. It pointed out that whereas
some small leeway may have existed in the past, it was never on the scale
that NERA requested: the addendum in question had been submitted over
three months late and involved changes worth a substantial amount of money.

The Commission indicated that its Delegation had been aware that NERA
proposed to re-allocate the budget. Still, it awaited a written request
for amendment, as it was foreseen in the rules. It did not know, however,
that changes had actually been carried out until it received the actual
addendum, several months after it had been informed of the proposal. In
contrast, the Czech MIT had certainly had timely knowledge of the changes,
but apparently failed to insist on the adoption of an addendum before
the work commenced.

The Commission concluded by stating that MIT was only the beneficiary
institution and their acceptance and appreciation of NERA’s work had no
bearing on the wording of Phare rules on contracting. MoF took the view
that it could not pay the amount of 104.000 EUR because it involved work
which was not included in the relevant contract and no corresponding variations
to the contract had been legalised.
**The complainant's observations**   

In his observations, the complainant repeated the arguments put forward
in his complaint, and contested some of the statements made by the Commission
in its opinion.

He agreed that the parties to the contract were NERA and the Czech MoF,
although pointed out that Phare Prague had been thoroughly involved in
the administration of the project at all times.

NERA admitted that Article 15 (3) of the Service Contract required all
changes to the contract to be made in writing and signed by the parties.
However, it underlined that there was insufficient time to prepare an
addendum to the contract due to the deadline imposed by Phare Prague and
MIT. The complainant insisted that during the meeting of 8 April 1999,
Phare Prague had requested the reallocation of personnel resources, but
did not indicate that an addendum to the service contract would be necessary
before any work could be done.

He concluded by stating that NERA had acted, at all times, in good faith.
At the request of Phare Prague, he stated, resources to the project had
been reallocated despite the fact that this change resulted in a loss
of revenue to NERA. The work had been completed within the strict timetable
laid down by Phare Prague and MIT which meant that NERA was unable to
produce the necessary contract addendum. The complainant believed that
Phare Prague was seeking to rely on this formality to avoid paying him
fees for work carried out on Phare's request.

FURTHER INQUIRIES
-----------------

In view of the available information, the Ombudsman requested further
details from the Commission concerning the allegations made by the complainant.
In a letter dated 29 November 2001, the Ombudsman asked for the following
information:

1 Did Phare Prague request at any time the modification of the project
carried out by NERA? Did it suggest that NERA's personnel resources working
in the project be reallocated?

2 If so, what was the time foreseen by Phare Prague for these changes
to take effect?

3 Did NERA inform Phare Prague in writing of the proposed changes it
intended to introduce among its personnel working in the project?

4 If so, what was the follow-up given by the Commission services to such
written communication?
**The Commission’s second opinion**   

In its second opinion, the Commission confirmed its previous statements,
and replied to the questions put by the Ombudsman.

++1. Request by Phare Prague:++ The Commission underscored that Phare
Prague had not requested the modification of the project carried out by
NERA. The Commission Delegation in Prague had never suggested either the
modification to the contract or that funds be reallocated. However, the
institution explained that its Delegation had been ready to examine a
formal request by NERA for an addendum to the initial contract and could
have approved it, if the properly justified addendum had been submitted
on time and according to Phare rules.

++2. Time for the implementation of changes:++ The Commission Delegation
in Prague expected that, if some changes were to be required and approved
by the beneficiary, they would have first to be formalised, in accordance
with the contract and with Phare rules. In that respect, the Commission
added that no specific timetable had been foreseen.

++3. Information given to the Commission:++ The Commission pointed
out that in September 1999 NERA had informally inform its services of
the proposed changes, through a copy of the letter addressed to the Czech
beneficiary. Since the Summer of 1999, the Commission Delegation in Prague
had been indirectly informed about the intention of the complainant to
propose some changes to the contract, but only in September 1999 did NERA
formally request such changes.

The Commission described the chain of events which followed the complainant’s
request. Thus, on 9 September 1999, NERA made this request to both the
Czech CFCU and MIT with a copy to the Commission Delegation. On 15 September,
MIT rejected this proposal and on 28 September 1999, the Czech CFCU made
a very clear technical answer to NERA’s proposal, indicating the exact
procedure to be followed. The above letter of the CFCU underlined the
wrong interpretation made by NERA about the possibility to reallocate
resources without prior authorisation, and warned that no retroactive
modification of the contract could be accepted.

A new proposal was sent by the complainant on 11 October 1999 and was
forwarded to the Commission Delegation in Prague for comments and/or approval
on 14 October 1999. The Commission explained that, in the meantime, the
proposed changes had been apparently carried out before its endorsement
of the addendum had been obtained.

++4. Follow-up:++ The Commission Delegation provided a detailed answer
to the Czech CFCU on 28 December 1999, requesting additional elements
of clarification and some changes to NERA’s proposal. The complainant
sent a letter to the CFCU on 12 January 2000 which only partially met
the above requirements, as was indicated in a written response by the
Commission Delegation in Prague of 20 January 2000.

Even though, the Commission answered only in late December 1999 to the
first proposal of addendum made by NERA, the Czech CFCU, in its letter
of 28 September, had already warned NERA that the approval of this addendum
could not be expected before November at the earliest. The Commission
regretted the delay in answering, but expressed that this delay was not
at the origin of the problem with the complainant.
**The complainant’s observations on the Commission’s second opinion**   

In a letter dated 13 February 2002, the complainant expressed his disagreement
with the arguments put forward by the Commission in each of the questions
raised by the Ombudsman.

++1. Request by Phare Prague:++ The complainant stressed that, contrary
to what was sustained by the Commission, Phare Prague had specifically
requested the reallocation of resources at the meeting held on 8 April
1999. This request was reflected in the terms of Mr Brychta’s letter of
20 April 1999, which had been copied to Messrs Collins and Gardea of Phare
Prague.The Commission had failed to address the discussions at
the 8 April meeting, and all the related communications.

The Commission referred to Mr Collins’ letter of 29 March 1999 as evidence
that Phare Prague did not request the modification of the contract. However,
Mr Collins’ letter only noted that Phare Prague was not prepared to increase
the allocated budget. NERA did not claim to be entitled to more than the
allocated budget.

++2. Time for the implementation of changes:++ In view of the complainant,
Phare Prague had requested that the contract be changed, as it was made
clear to NERA by all the parties involved before, during and after the
8 April 1999 meeting. Phare Prague also conveyed the idea that these changes
were extremely urgent, and therefore had to be carried out before 30 June
1999, which was the deadline for the production of the draft "VZZ".
This aspect had been acknowledged in Mr Collins' letter of 29 March 1999.

For the complainant, it was clear to all parties concerned, including
Phare Prague, that the reallocation would take place immediately, so that
the project could be completed in time. This was clear from Mr Francis’
letter to Mr Brychta on 23 April 1999, which detailed all relevant reallocations
of personnel. Mr Brychta was Director of the Energy Policy Department
at the Phare Management Unit at MIT. The complainant believed that he
should have been in regular contact with Phare Prague.

++3. Information given to the Commission:++ The complainant contested
the Commission’s view that it had only been informed of the changes introduced
in the contract in September 1999. He referred to a number of instances
in which the Commission had received indications of the proposed reallocation
of resources, namely:
- the inception meeting on 23 November 1998;

- the January, March and April 1999 Monthly Progress Reports;

- the letter from the complainant to Mr Kacvinsky of MIT on 22 March
1999 copied to Mr Gardea of Phare Prague. Phare Prague had replied to
this letter on 29 March 1999, even though it made no reference to the
reallocation of resources, or to the need for a previous addendum to
the original contract;

- the meeting held on 8 April 1999;

- the exchange between Mr Brychta of MIT (letter of 20 April 1999)
and NERA (23 April 1999).

++4. Follow-up:++ The complainant explained that despite all the indications
mentioned above, Phare Prague did not comment or object to this correspondence
and documentation. Having received the contract addendum submitted by
the complainant, the institution’s reply of 28 December 1999 did not state
that the addendum was a breach of the Phare rules or the Contract, but
simply requested further clarification. As for the early warnings and
friendly recommendations made by the Commission, the complainant pointed
out that these statements were not supported by the documentation. He
pointed out that following the 8 April meeting, there was no letter, fax,
email, telephone call or other communication from Phare Prague in relation
to a contract addendum until the Autumn of 1999.

THE DECISION
------------

**1 Information on formalities to change the contract, references to be
included in the Service contract or in the Phare General conditions**   

1.1 The complainant alleges that Phare Prague failed to inform him that
any change in the contract had to be made through a contract addendum,
which should have been approved previously by the Czech Ministry of Finances
(MoF). He also stated that Phare Prague failed to have any reference to
the possible changes to the contract included either in the Service contract
itself or in the Phare General conditions.

1.2 The Commission pointed out that the contract clearly stipulated in
its Article 15 that any changes to it must have been confirmed in writing.
This obligation was in line with the criteria laid down in Article 46
of the General Conditions (Annex E), which was an integral part of the
original contract. The Commission also explained that the parties to the
contract were the Central Contracting and Financing Unit (CFCU), based
at the Czech Ministry of Finance (MoF), and the complainant (NERA). Thus,
the Commission was not a contracting party, even though it remained responsible
for the supervision of the process.

1.3 The complainant enclosed with his original complaint an extensive
file with several documents. Section 3 of the file included the Phare
Service Contract signed by the complainant on 2 November 1998[(2)](#(2)){#Footnote2},
as well as six different annexes. The contract was established between
the government of the Czech Republic, represented by its Ministry of Finance
(MoF / CFCU) as the Contracting Authority, and the complainant (NERA)
as the Contractor.

The contract was to be composed of the service contract and six annexes,
which formed an integral part of it, as laid down in Art. 15 (1). Annex
A contained the Terms of Reference. Annex E included the General Conditions
for Service Contracts financed from Phare/Tacis funds. Annex D referred
to the Breakdown of prices, and included the fees and allowances to be
paid to the different parties and sub-contractors to the contract on the
basis of their estimated time involvement in the project.

Art. 15 (3) of the service contract reads:
*"Any amendment to this Contract must be agreed to in writing".*

Art. 46 of Annex E to the Contract (General Conditions for Service
Contracts financed from Phare/Tacis funds) states that:
*"The provisions of the Contract and the annexes thereto may be amended
or supplemented only by means of a supplementary agreement signed by
each of the parties or their duly authorised representatives. All communications
relating to the Contract shall be in writing".*

1.4 The Ombudsman notes that, as laid down in Art. 1 (1) of the service
contract,
*"\[...\] the Contractor shall carry out the tasks described in the
Terms of Reference (Annex A) \[...\] in accordance with the terms of this
Contract and its Annexes".*

The terms of the contract and its annexes stated in a clear and unambiguous
way the formalities which were needed before any amendment to the original
contract service could take effect. The complainant therefore should have
known of these formal requirements and their implications, without having
to be reminded of their content by the other party to the contract, or
by the Commission services.

The Ombudsman therefore considers that there appears to be no maladministration
as regards this aspect of the case.
**2 The Commission's refusal to accept payment of part of the work undertaken
by the complainant**   

2.1 The complainant has sustained that he modified the allocation of
personnel resources included in Annex D of the service contract, following
the request made by Phare Prague in the course of a meeting held on 8
April 1999. Because of the urgency of the work to be carried out, the
complainant has asserted that he was unable to submit a contract addendum
and await the Commission's approval. In his view, Phare Prague is relying
on a formal issue to avoid paying for work he has carried out at Phare's
request.

The complainant therefore alleges that the Commission acted unfairly
and with abuse of power by directing the Czech Ministry of Finances (MoF)
to reject the payment of services provided by the complainant's firm to
the Czech Ministry of Industry and Trade (MIT). Accordingly, he claims
that the Commission should authorise the payment of the remaining 104,000
EUR, as well as the interests on that sum, and the legal costs resulting
from the dispute.

2.2 The Commission has expressed the belief that its Delegation in Prague
merely acted in accordance with the terms of the contract. It stated that
any potential modification affecting the terms of the contract had to
be presented in writing to the Delegation for approval, prior to implementation.
The institution added that any retrospective endorsement was strictly
prohibited.

The Commission has denied that Phare Prague suggested either the reason
for a modification to the contract or that funds be reallocated. It pointed
out that if, in the course of a meeting or otherwise, the Delegation representatives
had been orally informed of proposed changes, these changes should have
been formalised beforehand in writing.

2.3 According to Article 195 of the EC Treaty, the European Ombudsman
is empowered to receive complaints "concerning instances of maladministration
in the activities of the Community institutions or bodies". The Ombudsman
considers that maladministration occurs when a public body fails to act
in accordance with a rule or principle binding upon it[(3)](#(3)){#Footnote3}.
Maladministration may thus also be found when the fulfilment of obligations
arising from contracts concluded by the institutions or bodies of the
Communities is concerned.

2.4 However, the Ombudsman considers that the scope of the review that
he can carry out in such cases is necessarily limited. The Ombudsman is
of the view that he should not seek to determine whether there has been
a breach of contract by either party, if the matter is in dispute. This
question could be dealt with effectively only by a court of competent
jurisdiction, which would have the possibility to hear the arguments of
the parties concerning the relevant national law and to evaluate conflicting
evidence on any disputed issues of fact.

2.5 The Ombudsman therefore takes the view that in cases concerning contractual
disputes it is justified to limit his inquiry to examining whether the
Community institution or body has provided him with a coherent and reasonable
account of the legal basis for its actions and why it believes that its
view of the contractual position is justified. If that is the case, the
Ombudsman will conclude that his inquiry has not revealed an instance
of maladministration.

This conclusion will not affect the right of the parties to have their
contractual dispute examined and authoritatively settled by a court of
competent jurisdiction.

2.6 In this case, the outstanding factual dispute concerns whether the
Commission services responsible for the implementation of the Phare programme
in the Czech Republic (Phare Prague), formally requested that the complainant
modify the terms of reference of the original contract, and if so, whether
the legal position taken by the Commission not to pay for part of the
tasks appears justified.

The Commission has insisted that it did not request or suggest the modification
of the project. The complainant, on the contrary, contends that Phare
Prague specifically asked for a reallocation of resources at the meeting
held on 8 April 1999. He pointed out that the request was reflected in
the terms of a letter from Mr Brychta of the Czech MIT dated 20 April
1999, which had been copied to Messrs Collins and Gardea of Phare Prague.
He has also referred to a number of additional documents from which it
could be understood that the Commission knew about the forthcoming changes
in the contract.

2.7 Having reviewed all the available evidence, the Ombudsman has not
been presented any written evidence which shows that the Commission requested
a change in the terms of the original Service Contract.

From the numerous exchanges between the complainant, the Czech authorities
and the Commission, there was a general agreement that the allocation
of human resources set out in the original contract had to be modified
if the project was to be completed in time[(4)](#(4)){#Footnote4}.
Nevertheless, no mention of a Commission's request for a change in the
contract appears from the available evidence. Despite the reliance of
the complainant on the terms of the 20 April 1999’s letter of Mr Brychta
from the Czech MIT, which described the contents of a meeting chaired
by the Commission on 8 April 1999, the wording of the document does not
appear to demonstrate that a request by the Commission for contractual
changes had been made[(5)](#(5)){#Footnote5}.

2.8 In the absence of more conclusive evidence, the Ombudsman considers
therefore that the complainant has not shown that the Commission was not
entitled to take the stand that it did concerning the contractual aspects
of the complainant's allegation. Thus, the Ombudsman concludes that the
inquiry has not revealed an instance of maladministration as regards this
aspect of the case.

This conclusion does not affect the complainant's right to begin legal
proceedings before a court of competent jurisdiction. Such a court could
authoritatively determine, applying the relevant national law, the complainant's
contractual claims and whether the Commission's refusal to pay for work
that the complainant carried out could result in the unjust enrichment
of the Community.
**3 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 therefore closes the case.

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

Yours sincerely,

Jacob SÖDERMAN

*** ** * ** ***

[(1)](#Footnote1){#(1)} Vecoy Zamer Zakona ("VZZ"): outline
piece of Czech legislation that is fully articulated with justifications
for its key sections.

[(2)](#Footnote2){#(2)} Contract No. CZ9703/0102/0301/0008
- IB: Foundation of the Energy Sector Regulatory Institution(s).

[(3)](#Footnote3){#(3)} See Annual Report 1997, pages
22 et ss.

[(4)](#Footnote4){#(4)} See, Minutes of the inception
meeting of 23 November 1998, par. 4, in fine : "Mr Poucet presented strongly
a requirement of the RG on ensuring higher proportion of local legislative
experts"; Monthly Progress Report up to end of December 1998, p. 2, par.
7: "The Review Group expressed the opinion that the resources on the project
may have to be rebalanced to ensure adequate local legal expertise"; Monthly
Progress Report January 1999, p. 1, section on "Reallocation of resources
in the Project Team"; Monthly Progress Report March 1999, p. 1, par. 3:
"we changed our approach to the project, as requested by MPO \[MIT\]. In
particular, we divided the work \[...\] most of \[it\] being allocated to
our Czech sub-contractors"; Monthly Progress Report April 1999, p.1, in
fine : "We have reached provisional agreement with several of our subcontractors
about reallocating some of the budget from NERA to them. We will be submitting
a formal request to change the contract to reflect this in the near future".

[(5)](#Footnote5){#(5)} "A request for other documents
(correspondence of the NERA company with local partners) was motivated
by concerns for a successful progress of the project, especially from
the view of the involvement of the Czech experts. These concerns proved
to be justified during our common negotiations on April 8, 1999, and you
yourself submitted in the mentioned negotiations large changes in the
solution of the project with a strengthened involvement of the Czech experts";
letter from Mr Pavel Brychta, Director of Energy Policy Department to
Mr S., NERA, dated 20 April 1999, for copy to Messrs Collins and Garden
from Phare Prague.