Strasbourg, 18 December 2006

Dear Mr X,

On 1 March 2005, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning an EU project.

On 18 April 2005, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 27 July 2005 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. No observations were received from you.

On 21 March 2006, my Legal Officer Mr Peter Bonnor telephoned you in order to ascertain whether, in light of a payment having been made by the Commission to your organisation, you considered the case settled.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant put forward, in summary, the following account of her view of the matter complained of:

The complainant was, together with nine other businesses or research centres, a partner in a combined project under the Fifth EU framework programme.

The project was to last from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2003. The research projects were submitted during the first quarter of the ensuing year. The Commission had expressly stated that all correspondence had to take place via the consortium's coordinator and that direct communications to the Commission coordinator, Ms G., would not receive a reply. The coordinator of the consortium's project, that is, of the partners, was Ms K.

For the years 2001 and 2002, the complainant had received payments and was only waiting for the final payment.

However, the paying unit of the Commission was in a poor condition. The cost statements submitted by the complainant in February 2004 were initially not dealt with at all. It was only six months after submission and several contacts with the Commission that the latter began its verification of those statements.

In addition, the handling of the cost statements appeared to be sloppy. In October 2004, the complainant was asked to submit originals of certain cost statements. Another project partner had a similar experience, when the Commission informed it that a form had been lost.

The Commission’s further handling of the complainant's statements was very slow. Five additional requests were made by the project coordinator, Ms K., regarding the state of the final financial verification(1). None of these requests were replied to. On 29 October 2004, the Commission coordinator, Ms G., informed the project partners that the Commission now had all the documents necessary for the final financial verification. On 31 January 2005, and following another request from the project coordinator, the Commission informed the partners that the financial verification had been finalised and that the payments would be made at the end of February 2005, at the latest.

Another request from the project coordinator, in which the Commission was requested to provide information as to the amount that the partners would receive, was made on 31 January 2005. The Commission did not reply.

At the time of this complaint, the complainant had waited for more than one year for the termination of the verification of their final report.

The administration of the funds was absolutely incomprehensible and not at all predictable. The complainant could not use the full approved budget because of the prolonged uncertainty as to whether the money would be paid at all. It would have been too high a risk to finance, in advance, the amount concerned. In respect to small businesses, it is of utmost importance that the business concerned receive timely information as to the financial situation. The delays experienced in this case can very easily jeopardise the survival of a small business.

In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant made the following allegations:

1. The Commission had failed to make the remaining payments due in the project referred to above.
2. The Commission had failed properly to handle the payment requests and subsequent correspondence submitted in relation to the above-mentioned project.

The complainant claimed that the Commission should make the payments concerned.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission’s opinion

The complainant was forwarded to the Commission, which submitted, in summary, the following opinion:

With regard to the allegation of failure to pay, the Commission had made the final payment on 21 April 2005 (that is, following the complaint to the Ombudsman).

With regard to the complainant’s second allegation, the Commission noted the following:

(i) With regard to the statement that the verification of the cost statements started only in September 2004, that is, six months after receipt of the statements, it should be noted that the financial verification of the cost statements submitted for the third year started only once the scientific verification had been carried out. All but one of the additional technical documents requested by the Commission on 14 June 2004 had been received on 22 June 2004. In her letter of 18 June 2004, the project coordinator stated that she would submit the last deliverable with the final report covering the whole period of the project.

In the end, no final report was submitted and the reports submitted for the third year were accepted by the Commission on 5 April 2005 as final reports. It should in this respect be noted that the last additional technical document requested by the Commission on 14 June 2004 was received only on 5 April 2005. The reason why the Commission did not request this document a second time before 5 April 2005 was that the Commission's scientific officer in charge was ill between October 2004 and February 2005. However, it is clear that the project coordinator was aware from 14 June 2004 of the need to submit the document, and she had in fact stated that she would do so.

(ii) With regard to the suggestion that the Commission had lost some of the original cost statements sent in February 2004, it should be pointed out that the Commission had not lost any documents. The cost statements received from the complainant as well as other partners were copies and not originals.

(iii) With regard to the statement that the Commission did not reply to five specific requests from the project coordinator, the Commission noted the following:

On 7 September 2004, the Commission requested by e-mail additional information regarding the submitted cost statements. The project coordinator replied the same day by e-mail to inform the Commission that she had asked the partners to provide the requested information as soon as possible. On 29 October 2004, the Commission informed the coordinator that it had received almost all of the requested information, but that the project coordinator’s organisation itself still had to supply additional information. The coordinator forwarded the additional information on 2 December 2004. That e-mail was purely informative and there was no need for the Commission to reply to this last e-mail.

By e-mails of 13 and 31 January 2005, the project coordinator asked the Commission for information on the progress of the final payment. The Commission replied on 31 January 2005, by e-mail, that the financial examination had been finished and that the final payment was expected for the end of February 2005, depending on the opening of the budget lines. It should be noted that there was no specific request to the Commission for information about the costs accepted for the complainant.

(iv) With regard to the statement that the partners had been waiting for the final verification for one year, the following should be noted: The cost statements and scientific reports for the third year were received by the Commission on 3 March 2004. On 19 April 2004, the Commission acknowledged receipt of the documents and informed the project coordinator that it would contact him again once it had finished its evaluation. On 14 June 2004, the Commission informed the coordinator of the review of the reports. It requested additional information on the following: a concluding workshop, an operational and updated project webpage, a project leaflet, the publications in preparation to be included in the final report, the final scientific report in a particular format, the Technology Information Package signed by all partners and a reviewed project summary. In the letter, it had also been mentioned that payment would only be made when all these documents had been received by the Commission. All the requested information was provided to the Commission on 18 June 2004, except for the project leaflet which, according to the coordinator, would be submitted together with the final report. No further final report was submitted by the coordinator to the Commission.

After a request for information from the project coordinator, the Commission informed him on 7 September 2004 that it had started the financial verification of the cost statements submitted. A partial answer was obtained on 29 October 2004. The complete financial information requested by the Commission on 7 September 2004 was received on 2 December 2004.

The third report was, in the end, accepted as a final report by the Commission. This was communicated to the project coordinator by e-mail on 5 April 2005. In the same e-mail, the Commission said that the final payment could also be approved from a scientific/technical point of view, on condition that the one missing document, namely, the project leaflet referred to above, was sent to the Commission. This was done the same day by the coordinator.

In light of the above, the Commission took the view that it had properly handled the payment requests and subsequent correspondence in the present case.

The Commission regrets that there have been a number of unfortunate circumstances such as the promise of the project coordinator, following a request by the Commission, to send a final report in June 2004 and the fact that one of the additional documents (the project leaflet) requested by the Commission in June 2004 was only given to the Commission on 5 April 2005. The latter was partly due to the fact that no reminders were sent by the Commission until early April 2005. All this led to delays that could have been avoided. In view of the facts referred to further above, the Commission is, however, of the opinion that there was no maladministration on its part. The Commission has, notably, provided its replies within the contractually agreed deadlines.

The complainant's observations

The Commission’s opinion was forwarded to the complainant, who submitted no observations.

The Ombudsman’s staff subsequently telephoned the complainant in order to ascertain whether, in light of the fact that the Commission had made the final payment, he considered the complaint settled. The complainant stated that he considered the issue of payment to be settled. However, he maintained her grievance regarding the Commission’s verifications, stating that his firm was very close to bankruptcy as a result of the payment delays on the part of the Commission.

THE DECISION

1 The allegation of failure to pay

The complainant was, together with nine other businesses or research centres, a partner in a combined project under the Fifth EU framework programme. The complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to make the remaining payments due in the project. He claimed that the Commission should make the payments concerned.

The complainant was forwarded to the Commission, which stated that it had made the final payment on 21 April 2005 (that is, following the complaint to the Ombudsman).

The Ombudsman’s staff subsequently telephoned the complainant in order to ascertain whether, in light of the fact that the Commission had made the final payment, he considered the complaint settled. The complainant stated that he considered the issue of payment to be settled.

In light of the foregoing, it appears that the Commission has taken steps to settle the case in respect to the payment claim, and has thereby satisfied the complainant regarding this aspect of the case.

2 The allegation of failure to properly handle the payment requests and subsequent correspondence

2.1 The complainant alleged that the Commission had failed properly to handle the payment requests and subsequent correspondence submitted in relation to the above-mentioned project. He argued, in summary, that the Commission had only begun its verification in September 2004 (more than six months after the Commission received the complainant's submission of the cost statements), that it had been sloppy in its handling of the verification process, that it had failed to respond to letters from the coordinator, and that the final verification had taken too long time, thus causing a late final payment.

2.2 In its opinion, the Commission took the view that it had properly handled the payment requests and subsequent correspondence in the present case. It regretted that there had been a number of unfortunate circumstances such as the promise of the project coordinator, following a request by the Commission, to send a final report in June 2004 and the fact that one of the additional documents (the project leaflet) requested by the Commission in June 2004 was only given to the Commission on 5 April 2005. The latter fact had, according to the Commission, partly been due to the fact that there had been no reminders from the Commission until early April 2005. All this led, it stated, to delays that could have been avoided. In view of the facts referred to further above, the Commission was, however, of the opinion that there was no maladministration on its part. The Commission had, notably, provided its replies within the contractually agreed deadlines.

2.3 The complainant did not submit observations on the Commission’s opinion. However, in the course of a telephone conversation, he informed the Ombudsman’s staff that he maintained her second allegation.

2.4 In order to examine this part of the complaint, the Ombudsman considers it useful to summarise, on the basis of the information and documentation provided by the complainant and the Commission, his factual understanding of the events relating to the present issues in the case.

On 3 March 2004, the Commission received the cost statements and scientific reports for the third year for the project. On 19 April 2004, the Commission acknowledged receipt of the documents and informed the project coordinator that it would contact him again once it had finished its evaluation. On 14 June 2004, the Commission informed the project coordinator that "[a]lthough the report was not an easy one to read, it was evident that much research activity had been accomplished. However, it [is] not possible to say from reading this report and its summary what the outcome of the project really is"; and "[a]ccording to the report, [the] project work is now complete apart from:

• a concluding workshop
• an operational and updated project webpage
• a project leaflet (leaflets were mentioned in the report but none was included in the material submitted with the 3rd year report)
• publications in preparation which should be included in the final report
• final scientific report in the approved QoL format
• TIP signed by all partners
• Project summary: this should be rewritten in a more readable style and with content that reflects the potential impact of the work as judged against the overall objectives."

On 18 June 2004, the project coordinator replied to the Commission's above-quoted letter, stating, amongst other things, that a final symposium had been organised and "is now included in the report"; that the webpage was "now being updated"; and that a project leaflet "will be submitted with the final report".

On 7 September 2004, the project coordinator asked the Commission to provide information on any progress in the verification. On that same day, the Commission official in charge informed the project coordinator, by e-mail, that "I have just started the financial analysis for the [...] project. Should I need any more information, I will contact you." On 14 October 2004, the same official sent the project coordinator a detailed list of additional information or clarifications that should be submitted to the Commission with a view to conducting further verification of the project. On 29 October 2004, the official concerned informed the project coordinator that "I have now received all the requested information from the various partners", but that information relating to what seemed to be overspending by one partner (by 20%) had not yet been received (request for information on this had been made in the e-mail of 14 October 2004). The official requested clarifications concerning this. On 2 December 2004, the project coordinator sent the above-mentioned official additional information and clarifications.

On 31 January 2005, the project coordinator asked the above-mentioned official for information as to when the verification would be finished. She informed the official that some partners were considering taking legal action in order to obtain payment. The official informed the project coordinator, on that same day, that "[t]he analysis has been done and the payment is ready to be paid as soon as our budgetlines have reopened. It is expected that the budgetlines will be reopened towards the end of February. Should they open before then, obviously I will initiate the payment earlier". The coordinator wrote back, the same day, requesting the official to fax her "the analysis table of [the project]". It appears that she received no reply.

On 1 March 2005, the project coordinator informed the complainant, in an e-mail, that "[w]e have not received any faxes, tables or analyses of payment yet". The e-mail was copied to the above-mentioned official.

On 5 April 2005, the official informed the coordinator that "I would like to inform you that the final report and TIP have been approved and that a final payment of ... is ready to be credited to the project." (Ombudsman's emphasis) She also stated that, "[h]owever, I realised that I have not yet received copies of the project leaflet. Could you please send me those the soonest possible so that I can clear/sign the payment?" and "[p]lease let me know when you plan to submit the leaflet copies so that I can clear the final payment." The leaflet was sent by the project coordinator the same day.

2.5 In respect to the above facts and events, the complainant has made the following points:

(1) The Commission's scientific verification of the cost statements submitted in February 2004 only began after six months and after the consortium had contacted the Commission several times.

(2) The Commission had handled the cost statements sloppily, in particular by losing forms sent to it by the consortium.

(3) The Commission had been slow: on 29 October 2004, the Commission's coordinator had informed the consortium that the Commission had received all the documents required for the final financial verification; on 31 January 2005, following another request from the consortium, the Commission informed the consortium that the financial verification had been finalised and that payment would be made by the end of February 2005. The payment was made at end of April 2005, hence the consortium partners had been waiting for more than one year for the completion of the Commission's verification.

(4) The Commission had wrongly failed to reply to five e-mails sent to it by the project coordinator (7 September, 14 October, 2 December 2004, and 13 January and 31 January 2005).

2.6 The Commission, for its part, has made the following points:

(1) The financial verification could only start after completion of the scientific verification. In respect to the latter, it had been necessary for the Commission to request additional technical documents on 14 June 2004. On 22 June 2004, all but one of the requested technical documents were received and the consortium's project coordinator stated that she would submit the last deliverable with the final report covering the whole period. No final report was submitted and the report submitted for the third year was accepted as the final report in April 2005. Furthermore, the last technical document (a leaflet) requested by the Commission on 14 June 2004 was received on 5 April 2005. There had been no reminder to submit this final document in the meantime, because the Commission's scientific officer had been ill from October 2004 to February 2005.

(2) The Commission had not lost documents submitted to it. The requests that the Commission had made for documents were for the originals of the documents concerned. The Commission had only received copies of those documents.

(3) With regard to the speed of the procedure, it was first to be noted that the Commission official concerned stated on 29 October that she had received all the requested information from the various partners, except information relating to what seemed to be overspending by one partner (by 20%). Information on the latter matter was sent to the Commission on 2 December 2004. The chronology of the Commission's actions preceding this was as follows:

1. On 3 March 2004 the Commission received the consortium's cost statements and scientific reports for the third year; an acknowledgement of receipt was sent to the consortium on 19 April 2004, including a statement that the Commission would further contact the consortium upon completion.
2. On 14 June 2004 the Commission informed the consortium coordinator of its review and requested additional information; the Commission clarified that payment would be made only once all these documents had been received.
3. On 18 June 2004 the consortium coordinator provided all the information requested by the Commission (including "final scientific report") except the project leaflet, which the project coordinator said would be submitted with the final report; however, no further final report was ever submitted.
4. On 7 September 2004 the Commission informed the consortium that the financial verification had begun. A partial reply was received on 29 October 2004. The complete financial information was received on 2 December 2004.
5. On 5 April 2005, the Commission accepted the consortium's third report as the final report and asked the consortium to provide the compulsory project leaflet. As noted above, payment was made on 21 April 2005.

(4) With regard to the e-mails allegedly not replied to, the Commission noted that the e-mails of 7 September and 2 December 2004 were sent in reply to requests made by the Commission; they did not, therefore, require a reply by the Commission. With regard to the e-mails of 13 and 31 January 2005, it noted that these were replied to in the Commission's e-mail of 31 January 2005. Additionally, the Commission stated, seemingly in relation to the complainant's reference to the consortium's second information request on 31 January 2005, that there was no specific request to the Commission for information about the costs accepted specifically for the complainant's company.

2.7 The Ombudsman considers it appropriate to assess the above issues as follows:

2.8 With regard to the complainant's view that the Commission had handled the cost statements sloppily, in particular by losing forms sent to it by the consortium, the Commission has explained that it had, as a matter of fact, merely requested the originals of the relevant documents, as copies were not permissible. The complainant has not specifically contested this, and the Ombudsman therefore concludes that the Commission's actions in this respect do not appear to amount to an instance of maladministration.

2.9 With regard to the allegedly unanswered e-mail requests sent by the consortium to the Commission, the Ombudsman notes that four of the e-mails referred to by the complainant were mentioned in an e-mail sent to him by the consortium's project coordinator on 13 January 2005: "I have sent messages to Mrs [the relevant Commission official] e.g. on 7.9.2004, 14.10.2004, 2.12.2004, (...) and 13.1.2005. On 29.10.2004 she wrote e.g. 'I have received all the requested information from the various partners' ... She still wanted to check some details in [a partner's] budget. I have sent her additional information. After that I have not got any claims or requests from her. I plan to call her on Friday 14.1.2005".

The complainant also referred to an e-mail sent by the consortium's coordinator on 31 January 2005.

With regard to the e-mail of 7 September 2004, which contained a request for information as to the Commission's time table of its analysis, the Ombudsman notes this was was replied to by the Commission on that same day. With regard to the e-mail of 14 October 2004, this merely informed the Commission that the consortium's coordinator had asked the relevant partners to send additional information. It did not contain any request for information. With regard to the e-mail of 2 December 2004, this also merely provided the Commission with additional information, and did not contain any request for information. With regard to the e-mail of 13 of January 2005, this also merely provided the Commission with additional information and did not contain any request for information.

In light of the above, the Ombudsman cannot find that there has been any instance of maladministration regarding the Commission's handling of the above-mentioned e-mails.

With regard to the second e-mail of 31 January 2005, the Ombudsman notes that the e-mail had the following content:

"Dear [Ms M.],

Thank you for your prompt answer. Could you, please, fax me the analysis table of [the project]. (...)

Thank you for the cooperation

(...)".

In an e-mail from the consortium's coordinator to the complainant, dated 1 March 2005, the former stated that "[w]e have not received any faxes, tables of analyses of payments yet".

Both above e-mails were enclosed in the complaint sent to the Commission with the Ombudsman's opening letter for the present inquiry.

As noted above, the Commission appears to have emphasised, in its opinion, that there was no express request for information relating to the complainant's company. However, the above-mentioned second e-mail of 31 January 2005 referred globally to the project here concerned, not to a particular partner of the consortium. Furthermore, the Commission has not contested that the request contained in the coordinator's above-quoted e-mail of 31 January 2005 remained unanswered.

2.10 Principles of good administration require that requests for information are replied to(2). In the present case, it appears that that an unjustified failure to reply to the specific request for information contained in the above-quoted e-mail of 31 January 2005 did occur. This constitutes an instance of maladministration, and the Ombudsman will accordingly make a critical remark below.

2.11 With regard to the complainant's view that there was unjustified delay in starting the financial verification, considering that the relevant statements were submitted on 3 March 2004 and that the Commission informed the consortium on 7 September 2004 that the financial verification had begun, the Ombudsman first of all regrets that neither the Commission nor the complainant has made reference to the relevant applicable provisions and how they were applied in the present case. Further, in light of the explanations provided by the Commission in this regard, the Ombudsman does not find that the time it took it to start the financial verification was unjustified. More specifically, the Commission has pointed to the problems associated with carrying out the scientific verification of the projects, due to shortcomings in the documents submitted by the consortium. The Commission has referred to its specific requests for additional information and documents, the propriety of which was not, according to the information available to the Ombudsman, in any manner disputed by the consortium's coordinator. Also the complainant in the present case has not, in any concrete manner, disputed the propriety of the Commission's above-mentioned requests.

Hence, the Ombudsman does not consider that the complainant's above-mentioned argument has been substantiated.

2.12 With regard to the complainant's view that there was unjustified delay in making the payments following the completion of the file for the financial verification, the Ombudsman first notes that the complainant's position is essentially based on the considerations that (i) on 29 October 2004, the Commission stated that it had all the documents necessary for the financial verification; (ii) on 31 January 2005 - following additional information requests - the Commission informed the consortium that the financial verification had been finalised and that payments would be made by the end of February 2005; and (iii) that the payment was only made on 21 April 2005.

As above, the Ombudsman also here regrets that neither the Commission nor the complainant has made reference to the relevant applicable provisions and how they were applied in the present case.

Further, the Ombudsman notes the following:

On 14 October 2005, the Commission requested additional information, in an e-mail which, first, contained the following statement and request:

"Dear [Mr I.],

I am currently working on the financial analyses of the third (final) period of the above-mentioned contract, However, I regret to inform you that I cannot proceed with the payment because I need further clarifications for some of the costs claimed by the various partners.

Partner 1 - [...]

It seems that [...] has overspent its overall budget by more than 20% of the contractual amount. Please provide details on budget transfer(s) that took place in order to finance these excess amounts. Please also indicate the amounts transferred from/to the various categories."

Furthermore, the Commission's e-mail of 14 October 2005, contained detailed requests for specific documents (originals of documents and missing pages of cost statements), as well as detailed requests for clarifications of specific items of information contained in the documents already provided by the consortium to the Commission.

On 29 October 2004, the Commission wrote the following to the consortium's coordinator:

"Dear [Mr I.],

I have now received all the requested information form the various partners. However, there is one more point that needs clarification, which is the following:

Partner 1 - [...]:

It seems that [...] has overspent its overall budget by more than 20% of the contractual amount. Please provide details on budget transfer(s) that took place in order to finance excess amounts. Please indicate from/to which category/partner amount were [sic] transferred. Please also indicate the amounts transferred from/to the various categories." (Ombudsman's underlining).

It appears that this request was essentially a repetition of a request made already in the Commission's above-quoted e-mail of 14 October 2004, and therefore assumed the nature of a reminder. The propriety of this request was not challenged by the coordinator, and has not been contested in any concrete manner by the complainant.

On 2 December 2004, the consortium's coordinator sent additional information, which, according to the Commission's opinion in the present case, completed the information requested for the purpose of its financial verification.

However, following receipt, on 2 December 2004, of the final relevant information, the Commission only informed the consortium on 31 January 2005 - that is, two months later, and following the consortium's written requests to be informed - that "[t]he analysis has been done and the payment is ready to be paid as soon as our budgetlines have reopened. It is expected that the budgetlines will be reopened towards the end of February. Should they open before then, obviously I will initiate payment earlier". On 5 April 2005, the Commission informed the consortium that "[the] final report and TIP have been approved" and that "a final payment ... is ready to be credited to the project". The consortium was also requested to send copies of the project leaflet (which it did that same day) as this was a compulsory deliverable in the project file and without which payment could not be cleared. On 21 April 2005, the Commission made the payment.

Thus, although the Commission was, according to its own statements, in possession of all the relevant material for finalising the financial verification on 2 December 2004, it was only on 21 April 2005 that it made the relevant final payment to the consortium, that is, almost five months later.

2.13 In its attempt to explain this delay, the Commission has put forward two arguments. However, in the Ombudsman's view, neither is convincing.

First, the Commission has referred to the lack of submission, by the consortium, of a "final report". However, the Commission appears to consider that it had in June 2004 received what could eventually be considered or accepted - and was accepted - as a final report, and the Commission has furthermore referred, in its opinion, to a 'further' final report that might be submitted in light of the content of a letter received by the consortium's project coordinator. In addition, and more importantly, the Commission has not indicated that the initiation or duration of the financial verification, or that the making of the payment, depended on the submission of such a document. Finally, it seems that the Commission never asked the consortium for the document in the context of the financial verification, which, as the Commission stated in its e-mail of 31 January 2005 to the project coordinator, was already finalised at that time.

Second, the Commission has stressed, in its opinion, that the final payment could not be made without the consortium having provided the "project leaflet". However, as an argument intended specifically to justify the delay between completion of the file for the financial verification and the actual payment to the consortium, this is not convincing because (i) the Commission actually proceeded to carry out the financial verification (despite the lack of the project leaflet), and (ii) the Commission declared in writing on 31 January 2005 that payment was ready to be made, and did not, at that time, request the project leaflet, but only did so on 5 April 2005. The circumstance referred to by the Commission, that the scientific officer in charge was ill between October 2004 and February 2005, cannot be accepted as an argument relevant to the delay in finalising the financial verification and making the final payment. Independently of the factual accuracy of the reference to the scientific officer's illness, principles of good administration require that, in such a case, the Administration take adequate measures to ensure the continuity of its proper functioning, which does not seem to have occurred in the present case. Under these circumstances, and although the leaflet might have been a necessary deliverable for making the final payment, it appears that the belatedness of the final payment was not due - as suggested by the Commission - to the actions or omissions of the consortium's project coordinator, but primarily due to the Commission's behaviour in the context of its handling of the payment request at issue.

2.14 In light of the above, the Ombudsman finds that there was unjustified delay in the Commission's handling of the payment request here at issue. This delay amounted to an instance of maladministration, and the Ombudsman will therefore make a critical remark below.

3 Conclusions

With regard to the complainant's first allegation and the associated claim for payment, it appears that the Commission has taken steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied the complainant.

With regard to the complainant's second allegation, it is necessary to make the following critical remarks:

(1) Principles of good administration require that requests for information are replied to(3). In the present case, it appears that an unjustified failure to reply to the specific request for information contained in the second e-mail sent by the consortium's coordinator on 31 January 2005 did occur. This constitutes an instance of maladministration.

(2) In light of the findings in points 2.12 - 2.14 above , the Ombudsman finds that there was unjustified delay in the Commission's handling of the payment request here at issue. This delay amounted to an instance of maladministration.

Given that the above aspects of the case concern procedures relating to specific events in the past, and given that the complainant has not made a specific claim for payment of interests due to late payment, it is not relevant to pursue a friendly settlement. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

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

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) E-mails from the coordinator to the Commission official concerned, dated 7 September 2004, 14 October 2004, 2 December 2004, 4 January 2005 and 13 January 2005.

(2) The Commission's Code on Good Administrative Behaviour, which is available on the Ombudsman's website (http://ec.europa.eu/civil_society/code/index_en.htm#), provides that:

"A reply to a letter addressed to the Commission shall be sent within fifteen working days from the date of receipt of the letter by the responsible Commission department. The reply should identify the person responsible for the matter and state how he or she may be contacted.

If a reply cannot be sent within the deadline mentioned above, and in all cases where the reply requires other work on it, such as interdepartmental consultation or translation, the member of staff responsible should send a holding reply, indicating a date by which the addressee may expect to be sent a reply in the light of this additional work, taking into account the relative urgency and complexity of the matter.

If the reply is to be drawn up by a department other than the one to which the initial correspondence is addressed, the person making the enquiry should be informed of the name and address of the person to whom the letter has been passed."

These rules do not apply to correspondence which can reasonably be regarded as improper, for example, because it is repetitive, abusive and/ or pointless. Then the Commission reserves the right to discontinue any such exchanges of correspondence."

And:

"(...) where the e- mail message is, by its nature, the equivalent of a letter, it shall be handled according to the guidelines for handling correspondence and shall be subject to the same deadlines."

(3) The Commission's Code on Good Administrative Behaviour, which is available on the Ombudsman's website (http://ec.europa.eu/civil_society/code/index_en.htm#), provides that:

"A reply to a letter addressed to the Commission shall be sent within fifteen working days from the date of receipt of the letter by the responsible Commission department. The reply should identify the person responsible for the matter and state how he or she may be contacted.

If a reply cannot be sent within the deadline mentioned above, and in all cases where the reply requires other work on it, such as interdepartmental consultation or translation, the member of staff responsible should send a holding reply, indicating a date by which the addressee may expect to be sent a reply in the light of this additional work, taking into account the relative urgency and complexity of the matter.

If the reply is to be drawn up by a department other than the one to which the initial correspondence is addressed, the person making the enquiry should be informed of the name and address of the person to whom the letter has been passed."

These rules do not apply to correspondence which can reasonably be regarded as improper, for example, because it is repetitive, abusive and/ or pointless. Then the Commission reserves the right to discontinue any such exchanges of correspondence."

And:

"[...] where the e- mail message is, by its nature, the equivalent of a letter, it shall be handled according to the guidelines for handling correspondence and shall be subject to the same deadlines."