Strasbourg, 19 January 2004

Dear Dr. O.,

On 14 July 2003, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the European Commission’s alleged failure to pay you for work carried out for the Commission.

On 24 July 2003, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 30 October 2003 and I forwarded it to you on 11 November 2003 with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished, by 15 December 2003 at the latest. 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

In his complaint lodged in mid-July 2003, the complainant, apparently a German national, alleged that the Commission had not yet paid him for his work as expert evaluator although 60 days had lapsed since the work had been carried out. It appears that the complainant considered that an amount of € 4089.41 was due to him.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission’s opinion

In its opinion, the Commission made the following comments:

The complainant had been involved in evaluating proposals for research contracts in Brussels from 12 until 16 May 2003. His complaint was that he had not been paid the sum of € 3943,05 due in respect of his work.

The complainant submitted his application form for reimbursement of costs and documents concerning the services provided on 17 May 2003. The amount was € 3943,05. Because of a temporary overload, the responsible department did not examine the application until 15 July 2003. The payment order was finally authorised and sent to the bank on 29 July 2003.

The Commission apologised for this delay.

The complainant's observations

No observations were received from the complainant.

THE DECISION

1 Alleged failure to pay the complainant in time for work carried out for the Commission

1.1 In his complaint lodged in mid-July 2003, the complainant, apparently a German national, alleged that the Commission had not yet paid him for his work as expert evaluator although 60 days had lapsed since the work had been carried out. It appears that the complainant considered that an amount of € 4089.41 was due to him.

1.2 In its opinion, the Commission explained that the complainant had been involved in evaluating proposals for research contracts in Brussels from 12 until 16 May 2003. According to the Commission, the complainant had submitted his application form for reimbursement of costs and documents concerning the services provided on 17 May 2003. Still according to the Commission, the amount claimed had been € 3943.05. The Commission explained that because of a temporary overload, the responsible department did not examine the application until 15 July 2003. The payment order was finally authorised and sent to the bank on 29 July 2003. The Commission apologised for the delay.

1.3 The Ombudsman notes that the amount that the Commission appears to have paid to the complainant (€ 3943.05) differs slightly from the amount mentioned in the complaint (€ 4089.41). However, according to the Commission, the complainant had only asked to be reimbursed the sum that it finally paid to him. In these circumstances, it cannot be excluded that the figure mentioned in the complaint was mistaken. Given that the complainant has not made any observations on the Commission’s opinion and that the Ombudsman's services have been unable to contact the complainant, the Ombudsman considers that it would not be appropriate to conduct further inquiries to clarify this point. The complainant is of course free to submit a new complaint if he should consider that the Commission has paid him less than was due to him.

2 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman’s inquiries into this complaint, there appears to be no maladministration by the Commission. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

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

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS