The complaint to Parliament

1. The complainant is a former Member of the European Parliament (the ‘MEP’). In mid-2017, he was informed that Parliament intended to recover about EUR 115 000 from him corresponding to amounts used to cover his assistant’s expenses during a part of his mandate, namely in the years 2015 and 2016. Parliament had learned that the assistant had taken up leading responsibilities in a political party at the same time as serving as parliamentary assistant to the MEP. It found that it had no evidence that the assistant’s expenses (i) were necessarily and directly linked to the complainant’s activity as an MEP and (ii) were not being used to finance a political party.

2. The complainant provided Parliament with a number of documents which, in his view, demonstrated that the assistant’s expenses were all related to his parliamentary activity. He said that he could not be required to produce evidence of a negative fact, namely that Parliament funds to cover the assistant’s expenses were not being used to finance a political party. In any event, requiring such evidence was unfair as it was very difficult to produce it so long after the events. In his view, it should have been for Parliament to come up with that evidence. He asked that the recovery order be annulled.

Parliament’s responses to the complainant

3. Parliament examined the complainant’s arguments and supporting evidence a number of times and concluded that these did not demonstrate that the assistant’s expenses resulted necessarily and exclusively from his assistance to the complainant as an MEP. It decided to proceed with the recovery order.

4. The complainant was not satisfied with Parliament’s responses and turned to the Ombudsman claiming that the recovery order should be annulled. In his view, Parliament had failed to consider crucial evidence, refused to meet him in person, reversed the burden of proof, unfairly demanded records of his employment relations, and incorrectly concluded that the assistant did not work for him as an MEP.

The European Ombudsman's findings

5. According to the rules in force in Parliament[1], MEPs are entitled to assistance from personal staff. Parliament covers the expenses linked to that assistance as long as these are necessary and directly linked to the exercise of the MEP’s mandate[2]. It is prohibited to use this money to finance political parties[3]. Activities linked to the exercise of the MEP’s mandate alone may be covered using Parliament funds. It is expressly forbidden to cover personal expenses or to fund donations of a political nature[4].

6. If Parliament finds that any of these rules have been breached and that sums have been paid unduly, its Secretary-General shall recover the relevant amounts[5]. Before any decision is taken, the Member concerned shall be heard by the Secretary-General. If an MEP disagrees with the recovery order, the MEP may complain to the Quaestors, the parliamentary body responsible for administrative and financial matters of direct concern to MEPs. The Bureau of Parliament, which is composed of the President of Parliament and the 14 Vice-Presidents, may also be involved.

7. Parliament has followed the applicable rules in this case. Parliament correctly explained that the information that the assistant had taken up leading responsibilities in a political party justified the recovery of the amounts intended to cover his expenses. The complainant was invited to present his views and to provide evidence in support of his position that the expenses should not be recovered on three different occasions: to Parliament’s Secretary-General, to the Quaestors and to the Bureau. Those views, as well as all the evidence presented on those occasions, were taken into account by Parliament.

8. As regards the complainant’s point that Parliament refused to meet him in person, the Ombudsman notes that the right to be heard does not necessarily mean that the person must be heard orally[6]. In any case, Parliament’s letter of 7 July 2017 to the complainant mentions that “a meeting” had in fact taken place between Parliament and the complainant.

9. According to the case-law[7] that is relevant to this case, the MEP must be able to prove that the amounts claimed were used to cover the expenses resulting from the duties carried out by the parliamentary assistant. The MEP must be able to produce documents justifying that they have used the services of their assistants in accordance with their working contracts. Such evidence may come in the form of, for example, calendars of appointments, e-mails and correspondence with the Member concerned, as well as documents produced by the assistant, which the MEP should keep[8].

10. According to Parliament, the complainant failed to produce appropriate evidence. Having reviewed Parliament’s assessment of the contents of that evidence[9], in the decisions of its Secretary-General of 7 July 2017, Quaestors of 27 November 2017, and Bureau of 16 April 2018, the Ombudsman finds this position to be reasonable.

11. The complainant stated that it was impossible for him to produce the necessary evidence so long after the events. The Ombudsman notes, however, that the complainant was in a position to submit to Parliament copies of e-mails he had exchanged and records of telephone calls he had had with the assistant at the time.

12. Based on the information provided by the complainant, the Ombudsman concludes that Parliament’s explanations to the complainant were reasonable and provided for a sufficient justification for it to recover the money.

13.  Thus, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in this case.

 

Emily O'Reilly

European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 13/12/2018

 

[1] Decision of the Bureau of 19 May and 9 July 2008 concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, OJ 2009 C 159, p. 1 (the ‘IMMS’), available here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009D0713(01)&from=EN

[2] Article 33 of the IMMS: “1. Members shall be entitled to assistance from personal staff whom they may freely choose. Parliament shall defray expenses actually incurred and arising wholly and exclusively from the employment of one or more assistants or the use of service providers in accordance with these implementing measures and the conditions laid down by the Bureau. 2. Only expenses for assistance which is necessary and directly linked to the exercise of a Member’s parliamentary mandate may be defrayed. Expenses linked to a Member’s private life may on no account be defrayed...”

[3] Article 43 of the IMMS: “The sums paid pursuant to this chapter may not be used directly or indirectly: (a) to finance contracts concluded with Parliament’s political groups or political parties...”

[4] Article 62 of the IMMS: “1. The sums paid pursuant to these implementing measures... shall be reserved exclusively for the funding of activities linked to the exercise of a Member’s mandate and may not be used to cover personal expenses or to fund grants or donations of a political nature. 2. Members shall pay back any unused amounts to Parliament.”

[5] Article 68 of the IMMS: “1. Any sum unduly paid pursuant to these implementing measures shall be recovered. The Secretary-General shall issue instructions with a view to recovery of the sums in question from the Member concerned. 2. Any decision concerning the recovery of undue payments shall be consistent with the requirement that Members should be able to exercise their mandate effectively and with the smooth running of Parliament. Before any decision is taken, the Member concerned shall be heard by the Secretary-General. 3. This article shall also apply to former Members and third

parties.”

[6] Case T-624/16 Gollnisch v Parliament, EU:T:2018:121, paragraph 93.

[7] Case T-479/13, Marchiani v Parliament, ECLI:EU:T:2014:866, paragraph 54:

"As to the claim ... that Parliament has not proved that the applicant's parliamentary assistants did not carry out the tasks required ... this is not the case. On the contrary, where Parliament scrutinises how a Member has used the secretarial allowance, the Member concerned must be able to prove that the amounts claimed were used to cover the expenses resulting from the duties carried out by one or more parliamentary assistants ... It was therefore up to the applicant to provide evidence to challenge the contested decision, whereas it appears that the applicant provided no evidence to show that the parliamentary assistants in question carried out the work of parliamentary assistants ... " [translation by the Ombudsman’s Office].

[8] Cases T-633/16 Bilde v Parliament, EU:T:2017:849 paragraph 118 and T-634/16, Mantel v Parliament, EU:T:2017:848, paragraph 122:

"[The court] rejects the allegation that Parliament was requiring evidence that is impossible to provide. As Parliament points out ... the work of the local assistant could have been demonstrated by different concrete evidence, in particular, through calendars of appointments, e-mails and correspondence, in particular, with the Member concerned, as well as documents produced by the local assistant ... a Member of the European Parliament must be able to keep and produce documents justifying that they have used the services of their assistants in accordance with their working contracts ..." [translation by the Ombudsman’s Office].

[9] The Ombudsman understands that the evidence included the assistant’s contract with the political party, letters from local staff of the complainant’s constituency and photographs of his local office, e-mails and records of telephone calls between the complainant and the assistant, and a tax certificate.