Strasbourg, 3 June 2008

Dear Mr S.,

On 21 April 2006, you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission concerning (a) its alleged failure to reimburse you part of the unduly high contributions that you paid to the European Union's "Centre Polyvalent de l'Enfance" ("the CPE") in Luxembourg and (b) the manner in which it dealt with a complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

On 29 May 2006, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 31 August 2006. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 21 September 2006.

Due to special circumstances relating to the present and other complaints that you had submitted, the inquiry was discontinued for the period from 14 May to 6 September 2007, on which date I sent you the Commission's reply to my further inquiries in the present case. You sent your observations on that same date.

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

THE COMPLAINT

Background

The complainant is a European Commission official who retired, due to invalidity, with effect from 1 April 2005. His two daughters attended, respectively, the "Garderie" and the "Study Centre" of the European Union's "Centre Polyvalent de l'Enfance" ("the CPE") in Luxembourg.

By letter of 14 April 2005, the Commission's "Office for Infrastructure and Logistics" ("the OIL"), which managed the CPE, informed the complainant that it had noticed that it was no longer possible to deduct his contributions to the CPE from his salary and asked him to contact its services. The complainant contacted the OIL by telephone on 26 April 2005. He informed it that he had changed status and requested that his contributions be adjusted to his new income. According to the complainant, he also informed the OIL on this occasion that he had not yet received any information on the actual amount of his pension, but that he would forward it to the OIL as soon as he received it. According to the complainant, he only received this information on 31 May 2005, following several reminders, and forwarded it to the OIL immediately.

By e-mail of 31 May 2005, the CPE's administration informed the complainant that, since it had not been possible to deduct his contributions from his salary since February 2005, a bank transfer system for the contributions would have to be put in place. It asked him to contact it rapidly. By e-mail of 2 June 2005, the complainant replied that, according to his pension statements, which he had now received, contributions to the CPE had been deducted from his pension for April and May 2005. Moreover, a contribution had been deducted from his salary for March 2005. He asked which months the payments were related to and whether any unpaid costs remained. Furthermore, he asked whether the contributions should not be recalculated based on his far lower income following retirement. By e-mail of 6 June 2005, the CPE informed the complainant that it had recalculated his contributions and that the reduced amount would be applied from June 2005 onwards. The CPE stated that it was not possible for it to apply the reduction to the preceding months, that is, April and May, because the relevant rules had to be applied strictly. In making this statement, the CPE appeared to refer to point 4.3 of the "Rules on admission to and operation of the CPE establishments" ("the Rules"), which provides:

"Parents must inform the relevant administrative department in writing of any change in their family, financial or professional circumstances as soon as possible, and within two weeks at the latest. (...) Account will be taken of any change from the month when the application is received."(1)

The complainant had not informed the CPE in writing of the change in his status.

By e-mail of 8 June 2005, the complainant asked for a detailed "invoice" indicating the exact amounts to be paid per month and per child. Furthermore, he formally requested that the reduction be applied to his contributions from April 2005 onwards. He argued that he had forwarded the relevant information to the Commission as soon as he had received it and that, no matter what the applicable rules provided, it could not be correct that the Commission (a) it had taken almost two months to inform him about the amount of his pension and (b) at the same time, denied retroactive application of the contribution adjustment for this period because he had not provided the relevant information.

In a subsequent e-mail of 5 August 2005, the complainant stated that he had not yet received a reply to his e-mail of 8 June 2005. Furthermore, he had noticed that the (unreduced) amount of his contribution had again been deducted from his pension for July 2005, which was contrary to the information he had received.

In a reply letter of 7 September 2005, the OIL referred to the above-mentioned point 4.3 of the Rules and stated that it had been the Commission's "Bureau des Salaires" (and not the complainant) that had informed it, in April 2005, of the complainant's new status. Furthermore, its services had asked the Commission's pensions department for his pension statement in order to determine the amount of his contributions. The complainant had only received this document on 2 June 2005. On the basis of these considerations, the OIL did not consider it justified to adjust the contributions retroactively.

The complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations

On 11 September 2005, the complainant submitted a complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations to the Commission. He listed, in summary, the following claims(2):

1. the decision on the deduction of the CPE contributions should be annulled;
2. the amounts deducted, plus interest (4.5 %), should be transferred to his account;
3. the decision not to apply the adjustment of the CPE contributions retroactively as from April 2005 should be annulled;
4. the retroactive adjustment referred to above should be effected through a relevant payment to his account;
5. he should receive a detailed overview about the costs per month and child, including information on whether the required payments had already been effected;
6. future deductions should only be made if they were lawful and exactly specified;
7. the Commission should apologise for its procedural errors; and
8. the Commission should compensate him for the moral damage he had suffered.

On 22 December 2005, the Commission transmitted a letter from the OIL addressed to the complainant, asking him whether he would withdraw his complaint in view of the letter in question. In that letter, the OIL stated that it would reimburse a sum of EUR 60.76 to the complainant. This sum constituted the difference between the reduced and the unreduced contributions for April and May 2005.

On 11 January 2006, the Commission took its decision on the Article 90(2) complaint. In its decision, the Commission stated that, since the complainant had indicated in reply to the OIL's letter of 22 December 2005 that the measure announced in this letter partly rectified matters but had not specified which parts he had in mind, it had dealt with the complaint in its entirety. It stated that the adjustment of the contributions from April 2005 had been announced in the OIL's letter of 22 December 2005 so that this aspect of the complaint was now groundless. As far as the claim for interest and compensation was concerned, the Commission referred to the specific administrative procedure that applied in such circumstances. It stated that an application for damages with respect to an alleged wrong that had not been caused by the act of which annulment was sought, but by different mistakes and failures of the administration, had to be preceded by a two-step administrative procedure beginning with an application under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations. Therefore, this aspect of the complaint was not admissible. However, if the complaint were to be considered as such an administrative step, the Commission could not respond positively to the request because the complainant had not shown that there had been a neglect of duty and an actual damage. With regard to the complainant's specific request for interest (with respect to which the rate proposed by the complainant was based on the rate that he paid for his mortgage), the Commission stated that this was simply without any foundation.

Furthermore, the Commission stated that, since July 2005, the contributions were no longer deducted from his pension, and therefore the request as to the specification of the deductions was groundless as well.

Finally, as far as the complainant's request for an apology was concerned, his claims had been fully met by the elimination of the grievance.

Complaint 828/2006/WP

On 9 March 2006, the complainant submitted a complaint to the Ombudsman against the Commission's decision on his Article 90(2) complaint. He added that he had still not received the payment of EUR 60.76 mentioned in the OIL letter of 22 December 2005. Furthermore, he complained that, instead of remedying an obviously well-founded complaint by admitting malpractice and by offering an apology, the Commission had, in sending him the letter of 22 December 2005, resorted to an "unofficial part-solution" in order then to be able to reject his complaint. The complainant considered that this was contrary to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations and contributed to the Commission's "psychological terror" against him.

On 11 April 2006, the Ombudsman rejected the complaint, mainly because he did not see sufficient grounds to open an inquiry pursuant to Article 195 of the EC Treaty, since the complainant had not explained exactly in which way he considered the Commission's decision to be flawed or what other behaviour on its part constituted maladministration.

The present complaint

In an e-mail of 21 April 2006, the complainant explained the different aspects of his complaint in more detail. Therefore, this e-mail was registered as a new complaint under reference 1213/2006/WP.

As to the Commission's decision on his Article 90(2) complaint, the complainant argued that Article 90 had to be understood as meaning that the Commission had to take a reasoned decision on the official's application, thereby precluding the possibility of not taking such a decision. Furthermore, he considered that the substance of his complaint had not been settled by the measure proposed in the OIL's letter of 22 December 2005 because all reasons for the complaint still persisted at the time of the Commission's decision. According to the complainant, Article 90(2) had the function of trying to settle disputes at the administrative level before submitting them to the courts. Where incorrect administrative measures were concerned (in his case the deduction of an incorrect contribution from his income), this meant that, apart from taking the correct substantive decision, the administration had to restore the complainant to his previous condition and offer satisfaction. Therefore the administration had expressly to annul its act and - according to general rules of good administration - apologise. In his case, the Commission had not restored him to his previous condition and had not offered him satisfaction because it had taken a new substantive decision without actually making the outstanding payment and without formally annulling its prior act. In view of the other cases he had submitted to the Ombudsman and to the Community Courts, the complainant alleged that the Commission had deliberately acted in this way only in order to pursue its "tactics of demoralisation" towards him.

As regards his claim for interest and compensation, made in his Article 90(2) complaint, the complainant argued that, according to the consistent case-law of the Community Courts, he could not be expected to go through another administrative procedure. Since the interest he claimed was lower than the one regularly granted by the Court of First Instance, he considered it unnecessary to prove the amount of interest due. However, he stated that he would be able to present relevant evidence. As regards compensation, the complainant added that his immaterial damage was caused by the Commission's demoralising tactics and his loss of confidence in its sincerity and fairness, especially as regards the complete and regular payment of his pension.

The complainant pointed out that he maintained the claims stated in his Article 90(2) complaint, that is, claims 1-8 listed above, but in particular claims 2, 7 and 8, concerning, respectively, interest, an apology and compensation.

The Ombudsman opened his inquiry into the following allegations and claims:

1. The Commission failed properly to deal with his complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations; and
2. The Commission failed to pay out the sum of EUR 60.76 that its Office for Infrastructure and Logistics ("OIL") had promised to pay in its letter of 22 December 2005.

The complainant made the following claims:

1. The Commission should pay out the sum of EUR 60.76;
2. He should be paid interest for the period during which unduly high contributions were deducted from his pension;
3. He should be compensated for the immaterial or moral damage he suffered; and
4. The Commission should apologise for the procedural errors it made in dealing with the matter.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

In the "Facts" section of its opinion, the Commission stated that, in a telephone conversation of 26 April 2005 occasioned by the re-enrolment of his children for the 2005/2006 period, the complainant had informed the CPE's administration that he had retired with effect from 1 April 2005. He had been asked to submit proof of his new monthly income. However, since the CPE had not received a reply, it had asked the Commission's pensions department for a copy of the complainant's pension statement. This information had been received on 2 June 2005. In his complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, the complainant acknowledged that the CPE's administration had only learned of the amount of his new income on that day.

As to the merits of the complainant's allegations and claims, the Commission considered that, as far as his second allegation and first claim were concerned, the complaint was groundless because the amount of EUR 60.76 had been reimbursed by bank transfer of 5 April 2006. The Commission stated that this payment had been made in the "interest of achieving an amicable solution".

As far as the other aspects of the complaint were concerned, the Commission referred to its decision on his complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, in which the reasons for the rejection of the complainant's application were set out. The Commission took the view that, contrary to the complainant's allegations, the rejection of his application did not constitute "psychological terror". It had agreed to pay the amount the complainant had claimed even though it had not been obliged to do so because he had not duly informed the CPE's administration about his change in status, as required by point 4.3 of the Rules. In its decision on the Article 90(2) complaint, the Commission had not insisted on these circumstances and thus on the fact that the complaint was in fact groundless. In the Commission's view, this approach was the opposite of "psychological terror".

On the basis of these considerations, the Commission considered that the complaint was unfounded.

The complainant's observations

In his observations, the complainant maintained his position, and made a number of points regarding the written and oral correspondence on the dispute here concerned.

The complainant acknowledged that his first claim had now been cleared since the above-mentioned reimbursement of EUR 60.76 had been made. However, he claimed that he was entitled to receive EUR 1.85 in interest. The complainant emphasised that he considered the moral damage he suffered to be far more serious. He insisted that the Commission should acknowledge the true legal situation and apologise to him.

Further inquiries

In a letter of 15 February 2007, the Ombudsman asked the Commission to provide him with further information in relation to certain aspects of the case.

In its reply to the Ombudsman's further inquiries, the Commission maintained that the dispute between itself and the complainant was due to the complainant's failure to respect the conditions of the previously mentioned point 4.3 of the Rules.

However, the Commission also noted the following: The complainant obtained invalidity status on 1 April 2005, that is, his personal situation had changed. The Commission's previous salary programme would not have made it possible to deduct the relevant contributions from the complainant's invalidity pension during the period when his new entitlements were being determined. The Commission had therefore informed the complainant as it did. However, the Commission's salary programme was in fact improved as from 2004 and continuously adapted to the new Staff Regulations. One of the improvements was that the deduction of contributions was possible even when a personal situation had changed. This explains why, contrary to the presumption of the relevant service, it had in fact been possible to make the relevant deductions in the period from February to May 2005. The Commission apologised for this misunderstanding.

With regard to the payment here concerned, promised on 22 December 2005 and made on 5 April 2006, the Commission stated that, in the handling of this file and in the transfer of information to the various persons and services involved, delays had in fact occurred. The Commission apologised for these delays.

The Commission finally maintained that it had acted appropriately and lawfully in its decision concerning the complainant's Article 90(2) complaint.

The complainant's observations on the Commission's reply

In his observations, the complainant maintained his position.

THE DECISION

1 The allegation that the Commission failed properly to deal with the complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations and related claims

1.1 The complainant is a European Commission official who retired with effect from 1 April 2005 due to invalidity. His two daughters attended, respectively, the "Garderie" and the "Study Centre" of the European Union's "Centre Polyvalent de l'Enfance" ("the CPE") in Luxembourg. The complainant's new invalidity status implied that, due to a lower income, he would pay a lower contribution to the CPE. The contributions had, until then, been deducted automatically from the complainant's salary.

Apparently due to the complainant's new status, he was initially informed, by the Commission's "Office for Infrastructure and Logistics" ("the OIL"), that it was no longer possible to deduct his contributions to the CPE from his salary. The OIL therefore asked the complainant for information on his new status. The complainant apparently provided information, orally, concerning the fact that his status had changed. The other Commission services concerned only produced written relevant proof of the complainant's new status at the end of May 2005, and the OIL received it on 2 June 2005.

For April and May 2005, the OIL applied to the complainant a rate of contributions to the CPE that was based on his salary and not on his invalidity pension. Since the complainant's status had changed as from April 2005, the complainant asked for the new (lower) rates to be applied as from that month. The Commission rejected this, essentially on the basis of point 4.3 of the "Rules on admission to and operation of the CPE establishments" ("the Rules"):

"Parents must inform the relevant administrative department in writing of any change in their family, financial or professional circumstances as soon as possible, and within two weeks at the latest. (...) Account will be taken of any change from the month when the application is received."(3)

The complainant had not himself sent the relevant Commission service written proof of the change in his status. For this reason, the Commission decided that the changed, lower, rates could not be applied to the months of April and May 2005, that is, the two months for which the service concerned had not received, in writing and from the complainant himself, information about his changed status. The complainant pointed out that he himself had only received the official documents proving his changed status at the end of May 2005, and hence he could not have informed the relevant Commission service of his new status earlier. The Commission maintained its position.

1.2 The complainant subsequently made a complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff regulations, arguing, amongst other things, that he was entitled to a "retroactive" downward adjustment of his contributions to the CPE, that is, for the months April and May 2005. In his Article 90(2) complaint, he listed, in summary, the following claims(4):

1. the decision on the deduction of the CPE contributions should be annulled;
2. the amounts deducted, plus interest (4.5 %), should be transferred to his account (he proposed the stated interest rate in light of the rate of a mortgage that he was repaying);
3. the decision not to apply the adjustment of the CPE contributions retroactively as from April 2005 should be annulled;
4. the retroactive adjustment referred to above should be effected through a relevant payment to his account;
5. he should receive a detailed overview about the costs per month and child, including information on whether the required payments had already been effected;
6. future deductions should only be made if they were lawful and exactly specified;
7. the Commission should apologise for its procedural errors; and
8. the Commission should compensate him for the moral damage he had suffered.

1.3 On 22 December 2005, the Commission transmitted a letter from the OIL to the complainant, asking him whether he would withdraw his complaint in view of the content of that letter. In the letter, the OIL stated that it would reimburse the sum of EUR 60.76 to the complainant as soon as possible. This sum constituted the difference between the reduced and the unreduced contributions for April and May 2005.

1.4 The complainant's relevant reply was not considered sufficiently clear by the Commission, which subsequently, on 11 January 2006, adopted its decision on the Article 90(2) complaint. It did so on the following terms:

It stated that the adjustment of the contributions from April 2005 had been announced in the OIL's letter of 22 December 2005, in which the challenged act ("l'acte faisant grief" / "beschwerende Massnahme") had been revoked ("relevé" / "aufgehoben") by the OIL's letter of 22 December 2005(5). Therefore, this aspect of the Article 90(2) complaint was now groundless.

As far as the complainant's claim for interest and compensation was concerned, the Commission referred to the specific administrative procedure that applied in such circumstances. It stated that an application for damages for an alleged wrong that had not been caused by the act of which annulment was sought, but by different mistakes and failures of the administration, had to be preceded by a two-step administrative procedure beginning with an application under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations(6). Therefore, this aspect of the complaint was not admissible. However, if the complaint were to be considered as such an administrative step, the Commission could not, at any rate, grant the request because the complainant had not shown that there had been a neglect of duty and an actual damage. With regard to the complainant's specific request for interest (with respect to which the rate proposed by the complainant was based on the rate that he paid for his mortgage), the Commission stated that this was simply without any foundation.

Furthermore, the Commission stated that, since July 2005, the contributions concerned had no longer been deducted from his pension, and therefore the request as to the specification of the deductions was groundless as well.

Finally, as far as the complainant's request for an apology was concerned, his claims had been fully met by the elimination of the grievance.

1.5 In his present complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant stated that, in his view, the Commission had been legally obliged formally to annul its challenged act, an obligation that it could not evade simply by deciding to pay out the disputed sum. He also considered that the Commission had wrongfully adopted its decision on his complaint without actually making the payment referred to above. He furthermore challenged the Commission's view that his claims for interest and compensation had been inadmissible. As regards compensation, the complainant added that the immaterial damage was caused by the Commission's general demoralising tactics towards him, and his loss of confidence in its sincerity and fairness, especially as regards the complete and regular payment of his pension. The complainant specified that he maintained the claims that he had set out in his Article 90(2) complaint to the Commission, and in particular claims 2, 7 and 8, concerning, respectively, interest, an apology and compensation.

1.6 In its opinion on the present complaint to the Ombudsman, the Commission stated that the above-mentioned amount of EUR 60.76 had been paid by bank transfer on 5 April 2006. It furthermore essentially confirmed its above position with respect to the Article 90(2) complaint. The Commission also provided additional information in response to further inquiries subsequently conducted by the Ombudsman. Relevant information and comments in the opinion and the above-mentioned reply are, where relevant, referred to and taken into account throughout the Ombudsman's examination below.

1.7 In his observations, the complainant stated that the Commission's payment of the above-mentioned amount of EUR 60.76 settled his first claim. However, he claimed that that he was entitled to receive EUR 1.85 in interest. He also emphasised that he considered the moral damage he suffered to be far more serious. He insisted that the Commission should acknowledge the true legal situation and apologise to him.

Alleged failure formally to annul the act challenged by the complainant, and alleged failure to have paid out the sum concerned at the time of adopting the decision

1.8 As regards the part of the Article 90(2) complaint challenging the decision on the deduction of contributions from the complainant's pension and the related decision on the non-retroactivity of the adjustment of his contributions (from April 2005), the Ombudsman makes the following remarks. He notes that the Commission's decision on this portion of the complaint relied on the fact that the relevant challenged acts had, in essence, already been revoked by it. Under these circumstances, the complainant's allegation is not substantiated, as regards the specific aspect of the Commission's decision on his Article 90(2) complaint. Indeed, since the challenged acts had essentially been replaced by a decision accepting the retroactive downward adjustment of the complainant's contributions claimed by him, the Institution could properly deal with this part of the Article 90(2) complaint by recognising and referring to the said significant change in the complainant's legal situation. The mere fact that the decision about the retroactive adjustment had not yet been executed, by the actual reimbursement of the relevant amount of money to the complainant, does not suggest otherwise. This is because, at least for the purposes of the decision on the complainant's Article 90(2) complaint, the settlement of the dispute concerning the matter of the deduction and the retroactive adjustment was distinguishable from and independent of the issue of the actual taking of the material measures which execute the decision settling this matter.

1.9 In light of the foregoing, the Ombudsman does not find that this part of the complaint is justified.

Alleged failure to deal properly with the claim for interest

1.10 The Commission, first, argued that the claim for interest was inadmissible because it concerned not an act for which annulment had been requested, but solely various "mistakes and failures" of the Administration.

1.11 In support of its position, the Commission referred to the decision of the Court of Justice in Case T-500/93(7). In that case, the Court held that claims for compensation are subject to an autonomous procedure and have to be preceded by the exhaustion of the relevant means of redress under the Staff Regulations. The Court distinguished the situation involving an act adversely affecting the official (in French using the term "un acte faisant grief") from the situation not involving an 'act' in that sense ("un comportement de l'administration dépourvu de caractère décisionnel"). The first situation can be dealt with directly and immediately under the complaint procedure provided for in Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. In the second situation, however, the claim for compensation must first be made through a request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations.

1.12 First, in light of the facts of the present case, and in particular of the content of the Commission's decision on the Article 90(2) complaint here concerned, the Ombudsman does not consider the Commission's position to be convincing. This is mainly because the Commission's decision expressly stated that the challenged act was an "acte faisant grief" / "beschwerende Massnahme", which had been revoked ("relevé" / "aufgehoben"). The Ombudsman understands the complainant's claim for interest to relate precisely to this challenged act, and the claim for interest therefore had a direct link to that act(8). Furthermore, the fact that the Commission decided to meet the complainant's claim for a back-dated downward adjustment of the contributions here concerned, before adopting its decision on his Article 90(2) complaint, did not render the complainant's request void.

1.13 Second, the Commission considered that, even in the event that the claim for interest were admissible it could not, at any rate, be granted because the complainant had not shown that there was a neglect of duty and the rate proposed by him (based on his mortgage rate) was simply without any foundation. It is the Ombudsman's understanding that the Commission considered, in essence, that it would be liable to pay interest, albeit not at the specific rate proposed by the complainant, in the event that there had been a neglect of duty on its part. The Commission took the view that there was no such shortcoming on its part, since it was the complainant's responsibility, in accordance with point 4.3 of the Rules, to provide the relevant administrative department with information about the change in his situation,. In this regard, it must be noted, however, that the Commission had this information readily at its disposal, because it was the one that actually decided (a) the relevant change in the complainant's status and (b) its particulars, such as the date of his retirement due to invalidity and the exact amount of the pension he would be receiving. Under these circumstances, the Commission's general duty for service-mindedness and administrative efficiency could be considered to come into play and require that it update, of its own initiative and volition, the data on the complainant's professional and financial status, for the purposes determining his contributions to the CPE. Indeed, although the Commission acted diligently by putting in place, as from 2004, an improved salary programme that made the deduction of contributions possible even when the service status of its official concerned had changed, apparently it did not show a comparable degree of diligence as regards the issue indicated above.

The Ombudsman, further, notes that (a) the complainant has stated that the claimed interest amounted to EUR 1.85, namely, an insignificant amount of money; (b) t he Commission rejected the interest rate adopted by the complainant, without examining which one would be applicable; and (c) the Commission eventually paid to the complainant the main sum he claimed. The Ombudsman also points to the interest in procedural economy in relation to the use of his resources. Taking into account the above elements, the Ombudsman does not consider it justified to further pursue the matter. Nevertheless, he will make a relevant further remark at the end of the present decision.

Alleged failure to deal properly with the claim for compensation

1.14 As regards the Commission's argument about the inadmissibility of this claim, the Ombudsman refers, mutatis mutandis, to his remarks in point 1.12 above. He, thus, does not accept this argument. In relation to the Commission's argument about the absence of a neglect of duty on its part, he refers to his observations in point 1.13 above and to his relevant further remark at the end of the present decision. The Commission also rejected the claim for compensation on the grounds that the complainant had not shown any actual damage. The complainant had referred, in his Article 90(2) complaint, to the moral damage he had suffered because of the Commission's behaviour in the present case. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, he argued that the Commission deliberately set out to demoralise him. However, this argument has not been duly substantiated. Relatedly, the Ombudsman notes that, in the course of his inquiry into the case, the Commission sought to "achiev[e] an amicable solution" to the complainant's complaint. In this regard, it paid the complainant the amount which corresponded to the claimed difference between the contributions actually deducted from his pension and the ones which resulted from their downward adjustment due to his new professional and financial situation. It also apologised for certain shortcomings in its handling of the complainant's case. The Ombudsman welcomes the above actions of the Commission, which tend to refute the complainant's accusation that it adopted "tactics of demoralisation". Taking into account the above considerations, the Ombudsman does not find it justified to further inquire into and consider the issue of the complainant's claim for compensation.

Alleged failure by the Commission's to apologise for its procedural errors

1.15 The Ombudsman takes note of his remarks and conclusions in points 1.13 and 1.14 above. He notes in particular that the Commission has apologised for certain shortcomings in its handling of the complainant's case and has paid him the amount which corresponded to the claimed difference between the reducted contributions and the unreduced contributions for April and May 2005. In light of the above considerations, the Ombudsman does not find it justified further to inquire into and consider this aspect of the complaint.

2 The allegation that the Commission failed to pay out the sum of EUR 60.76 that the OIL had promised to pay in its letter of 22 December 2005

2.1 The complainant's second allegation was that the Commission failed to pay out the sum of EUR 60.76 that the OIL had promised to pay in its letter of 22 December 2005.

2.2 As previously pointed out, (a) the above-mentioned sum was paid on 5 April 2006, following, as the Commission stated in its decision on the complainant's Article 90(2) complaint, the formal revocation of the challenged act; (b) the Commission has admitted that delays occurred in the making of that payment, and has issued an express apology to the complainant in that regard, and (c) the complainant has stated that that payment meets the associated claim, that is, the first claim taken up for inquiry in the present inquiry.

2.3 In light of the foregoing, the Ombudsman does not consider it justified to further inquire into this aspect of the case.

3 Conclusion

In light of his remarks and conclusions in points 1.8, 1.9, 1.13, 1.14, 1.15 and point 2 above, the Ombudsman does not find it justified further to inquire into and consider the complainant's allegations and related claims. The Ombudsman will thus close the case.

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

FURTHER REMARK

The Ombudsman takes note of the Commission's statement that it has put in place, as from 2004, an improved salary programme that makes the deduction of contributions possible even when the service status of its official concerned has changed. He welcomes this step, which appears to further the Community's important interest in efficient financial management. Also taking into account the Commission's general duty for service-mindedness and administrative efficiency, the Ombudsman strongly encourages the Commission to take similar steps with a view to updating, in cases like the one at issue, the data on the service and financial status of its officials, for the purposes of determining their contributions, such as the ones made to the CPE.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) The Commission quoted the French version of this provision, which is the only binding one and which reads: "Tout changement dans la situation familiale, financière ou professionnelle des parents doit obligatoirement et immédiatement être porté à la connaissance du service gestionnaire concerné par écrit dans un délai maximum de 15 jours. (...). Le changement sera pris en compte à partir du mois de réception de la demande."

(2) Where relevant, the complainant's arguments in support of these claims are set out and further dealt with below.

(3) See footnote 1.

(4) Where relevant, the complainant's arguments in support of these claims are set out and dealt with further below.

(5) The Commission did not specifically describe or define this 'acte faisant grief', but it must be understood to refer to the Commission's decision on the deduction of the relevant contributions and its refusal to apply the relevant rate retroactively.

(6) The Commission referred to Case T-500/93 Y v Court of Justice [1996] ECR II-977.

(7) See footnote 6.

(8) Cf., for example, Joined Cases T-17/90, T-28/91 and T-17/92 Camara Alloisio v Commission [1993] ECR II-841 (paragraphs 45-47).