Dear Mr C.,

On 20 March 2001, you made a complaint, in your quality as mayor of the Italian town of Calcinato, to the European Ombudsman against the Commission. Your complaint concerned the Commission's dealing with the request for a Community grant submitted by the Municipality of Calcinato for a town twinning programme with the French town of Champtoceaux - Pays de la Loire.

On 8 May 2001, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 13 August 2001 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. No observations appear to have been received from you.

To avoid misunderstanding, it is important to recall that the EC Treaty empowers the European Ombudsman to inquire into possible instances of maladministration only in the activities of Community institutions and bodies. The Statute of the European Ombudsman specifically provides that no action by any other authority or person may be the subject of a complaint to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman's inquiries into your complaint have therefore been directed towards examining whether there has been maladministration in the activities of the European Commission.

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

THE COMPLAINT

On 18 July 2000, the Municipality of Calcinato sent an application to the European Commission to obtain a grant to carry out a town twinning project to take place on 1-5 November 2000 in Calcinato. The application was sent to the Commission via the Italian section of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (AICCRE).

In 5 October 2000, since no reply was received by the Commission, the AICCRE's services called the institution's services and asked to be informed on the progress of the selection procedure. The Commission stated that the relevant dossier was never received and asked the AICCRE to send it again. However, the institution pointed out that since the budgetary resources for the year 2000 were already exhausted since September 2000, it might not be possible for the Commission to finance the complainant's project.

By letter of 21 February 2001, the Commission informed the complainant that, according with the financial regulations it was impossible to use budgetary funds retroactively.

On this basis the complainant lodged a complainant with the Ombudsman, in which he claimed that the Municipality of Calcinato should not suffer negative consequences for a case of maladministration by the Commission's services and that the institution should consider the possibility to examine the project concerned even after the normal date.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion on the complaint, the Commission made in summary the following comments:

The Commission's services did not receive the application presumably sent by the AICCRE on 18 July 2000. Following a telephone conversation between the AICCRE and the Commission's services on 5 October 2001, a new copy of the dossier was sent on 6 October 2000. The AICCRE was aware of the fact that budgetary resources provided for town twinning grants were already exhausted since September 2000, and the complainant was informed accordingly.

As a matter of principle and in spite of its late reception and the lack of budgetary funds, the application was examined by the responsible service for town twinning projects. The Commission concluded that the cost of the event was disproportionately high and informed the complainant thereof by letter of 21 February 2001.

The Commission pointed out that its decision in this case could not be revised, since the application was submitted under the procedure for funding of the year 2000. According to the financial regulations, budgetary funds cannot be used retroactively.

Furthermore, the Commission regretted that due to its restructuring and administrative reform, there have been delays in the treatment of certain files during the year 2000. The institution stressed that within the services responsible for town twinning projects new measures have been taken in order to avoid any kind of inconveniences related to the treatment of dossiers in the future.

The complainant's observations

The Commission's opinion was forwarded to the complainant for observations. No observations appear to have been received by the Ombudsman.

THE DECISION

1 The Commission's handling of the complainant's application

1.1 The complainant, mayor of the Italian town of Calcinato, sent a request of grant to the Commission to carry out a town twinning project. The application was presumably sent to the Commission on 18 July 2000, via the Italian section of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (AICCRE). According to the Commission, the application was never received by the competent service and it was therefore not examined.

The complainant claimed that the Municipality of Calcinato should not suffer negative consequences for a case of maladministration by the Commission's services and that the institution should consider the possibility to examine the project concerned even after the normal date.

1.2 In its opinion, the Commission pointed out that it never received the application which, according to the complainant, was forwarded to the competent services by the AICCRE. The Institution pointed out that a copy of the relevant application was only received by its competent services on 6 October 2000. AICCRE was informed that since the budgetary resources for the year 2000 were already exhausted since September 2000, it might not be possible for the Commission to finance the complainant's project.

The Commission also pointed out that budgetary funds cannot be used retroactively. It was therefore impossible to use funds of the 2001 budget, as envisaged by the complainant in his complaint to the Ombudsman, for the purpose of financing an activity carried out in the year 2000.

1.3 In the application form, it is indicated that applications should be presented at least three months before the event for which the grant is requested. It appears that the Commission received the application only four weeks before the event described in the project presented by the Municipality of Calcinato would have taken place.

The Ombudsman notes that during the inquiry neither the complainant nor the AICCRE have provided evidence that the application presented by the municipality of Calcinato was actually forwarded to the Commission on 18 July 2000.

1.4 In view of the above, there appears to have been no maladministration by the Commission as concerns its handling of the complainant's application.

2 Conclusion

On the basis of the 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