Dear Mr K.,
On 30 May 1997, in your capacity as Mayor of the Municipality of Larissa, you lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman against the European Commission with regard to a project put forward by your municipality in the framework of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).
On 3 October 1997, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 21 January 1998 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. On 31 March 1998, I received your observations on the Commission's opinion.
On the basis of your observations, I decided to pursue my inquiry into your complaint and on 10 June 1998, I asked the Commission for additional comments. On 30 July 1998, I received the Commission's reply which I transmitted to you. I did not receive any observations from you on the Commission's reply.
I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

The Municipality of Larissa submitted a project on "Restoration and transformation into a theatre of the OUYHL-Building in Larissa" in the framework of the ERDF Operational Programme on Tourism and Culture, subprogramme Culture, of the 2nd Community Support Framework for Greece, to be co-financed by national and Community funds.
The Monitoring Committee in charge of the selection of the projects met in Athens in January 1997. The Committee was composed of representatives of the Greek authorities and representatives of the Commission. A delegation from Larissa, headed by the complainant, attended the working session of the Monitoring Committee and presented their arguments in support of the project.
In March 1997, the Greek Ministry of Cultural Affairs informed the Municipality that the project was not selected. It enclosed a document written by the Commission containing remarks on the project. The municipality was of the opinion that the arguments put forward by the Commission could not be sustained and it wrote to the Commission to present its own arguments. The Commission replied in a letter dated 16 April 1997.
The complainant claims that the information in the decision of the Monitoring Committee was vague, that the decision was not sustained and that the handling of the procedure was tactless.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion
The Commission made in summary the following points:
The selection of the projects within the framework of the Community Structural Funds is not within the powers of the Commission Services. However, in the case of Greece, the Member State wished to have Commission Services implicated in the selection process as a general rule. Monitoring committees composed of representatives of the national authorities and representatives of the Commission are in charge of the selection of the projects. However, even if the Commission plays an active role in the selection of projects in Greece, the decisions of the committees are made under the final responsibility of the Member State.
A meeting of the Monitoring Committee took place in Athens on 22 January 1997 in order to discuss the ERDF Operational Programme on Tourism and Culture. The representatives of the Greek Ministry for Culture, as well as a delegation from Larissa headed by the complainant, participated in the meeting. Everyone was able to express his or her opinion. The President of the Monitoring Committee and the Commission representatives expressed their doubts as to the compliance of the project of the Municipality of Larissa with the European Regional Development Fund co-financing rules. These doubts were not accepted by the delegation of Larissa.
By letter from the Commission Services to the Greek Ministry of Culture, dated 3 February 1997, the Commission confirmed its opinion that the Larissa project did not seem economically and financially viable and that it would have too little impact in terms of increasing the economic potential of the region as requested by the Community rules on the activities of the ERDF. The fact that the project was not re-submitted to the Monitoring Committee means that the Hellenic Authorities had finally decided not to co-finance this project through the Operational Programme on Tourism and Culture.
The complainant's observations
The complainant maintained his complaint. He pointed out that the Commission had not answered on the part of his complaint concerning the improper tone of the Commission letters.
He asked the Ombudsman to make an inquiry on this point.

FURTHER INQUIRIES

In order to clarify the complainant's allegations about the improper tone of the Commission correspondence, the Ombudsman asked the Commission to transmit the whole correspondence it had sent to the complainant.
The Commission's reply
The Commission informed the Ombudsman that the letter dated 16 April 1997 was the only correspondence sent by the Commission to the complainant.
The Commission pointed out that the letter only reminded the complainant of the substance of the debates during the working session of the Monitoring Committee. The Commission regretted that the complainant felt hurt by the tone of its letter.
The Ombudsman did not receive any observations from the complainant on the Commission's comments.

THE DECISION

1. The decision of the Monitoring Committee
1.1 According to the complainant, the decision of the Monitoring Committee was vague and not grounded. The Commission replied that the selection of projects within the framework of the Community Structural Funds is not within the powers of the Commission Services even if, in the case of Greece, it is implicated in the selection process through the monitoring committees.
1.2 The Ombudsman considered the elements put forward by both the complainant and the Commission. He notes that the decision of the Monitoring Committee not to select the project put forward by the Municipality of Larissa was made under the final responsibility of the Hellenic authorities.
1.3 However, given the influence that the Commission could have played in the selection procedure of the Monitoring Committee, the Ombudsman examined the Commission's position vis-à-vis the project introduced by the Municipality of Larissa. It appears that the Commission put forward arguments in support of its position and that its position was therefore sufficiently motivated. The Ombudsman did not find any maladministration by the Commission relating to this point.
2. The tone of the correspondence from the Commission
According to the complainant, the correspondence from the Commission was tactless. The commission informed the Ombudsman that the only correspondence with the complainant was the letter dated 16 April 1997. It regretted that the complainant felt hurt by the tone of its letter. The Ombudsman did not find any maladministration by the Commission relating to this aspect of the complaint.
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