Dear Mr M.,
On 21 September 1999, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman on behalf of one of your constituents concerning non-payment of work that your constituent had carried out for the Commission. You also alleged that the Commission had failed to respond adequately to questions by yourself concerning your constituent's payment problems.
On 28 September 1999, I forwarded the complaint to the President of Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 7 February 2000. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 4 April 2000.
I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.
I apologise for the time it has taken to finish the inquiry.

THE COMPLAINT

On 21 September 1999, the complainant, a Member of the European Parliament, submitted the following allegations on behalf of one of his constituents and himself:
i) the constituent, a consultancy company, had not received payment for work it carried out for the Commission ii) the Commission had failed to respond to the complainant's questions concerning the constituent's claims for payment.
In respect of the first allegation, the relevant facts were the following. The complainant's constituent (hereinafter 'the company') had in early 1996 contracted with the European Commission to contribute to the evaluation of projects carried out under the "AVICIENNE" Programme, a programme which formed part of the MED programmes.
The contract consisted of two phases. Phase 1 was completed satisfactorily and full payment eventually made in 1997. Also the first payment of Phase 2 was made satisfactorily. In mid-1998, an extension of the contract was agreed, and the company started its work on Phase 2.
On advice from a Commission service, the company applied for payment of the second stage of Phase 2 in August 1998. Payment was thereafter expected to be made in late September 1998. From late September 1998, the company contacted the Commission on numerous occasions regarding the payment of the outstanding invoice. During October, the company was advised that all hurdles and problems had been overcome and payment would be forthcoming. Throughout this period, the company continued working on the contract. In late November 1998 the company contacted the Commission to find out why payment had not been made. It was informed that the Commission service in question had provided the company with incorrect information; the payment which the service had previously indicated as sanctioned, i.e. approved by the other relevant Commission services, had in fact not been sanctioned. The service told the company that it did not know when the money could be paid.
On 2 February 1999, the company asked for help from the complainant, whose correspondence with the Commission gave rise to the second allegation.
The relevant facts concerning the second allegation were the following:
- On 23 February 1999 the complainant wrote to the Commission, asking the Commission to quickly resolve the payment problem.
- On 18 March 1999 the complainant wrote to the Commission anew, asking for a response to his letter of 23 February.
- On 15 April 1999 the complainant wrote to the Commission again, complaining about the lack of replies to his letters.
- On 23 April 1999, i.e. two months after the complainant's first letter, a head of unit of the Commission wrote to the complainant, informing him that the Commission was in the process of reintroducing the credits for the various private beneficiaries like the complainant's constituent, the company. The complainant acknowledged receipt of the Commission's letter on 12 May 1999.
- On 15 July 1999 the complainant requested the Commission, in writing, to inform him about the payment situation.
- On 7 September 1999 the complainant wrote to the Commission again, expressing his dissatisfaction with not having received adequate replies. The complainant also informed the Commission that he would lodge a complaint to the European Ombudsman on the matter. The Commission appears not to have replied to this letter.
On 16 November 1999, i.e. post-dating the complainant's lodging of his complaint to the Ombudsman, the President of the European Commission wrote to the complainant in response to his letter of 15 July 1999. In his letter, the President of the Commission expressed his regrets about the delay in finding a solution to the payment problem, and informed the complainant that his services were in the process of regularising the legal and financial aspects in question.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion
In respect of the first allegation, the Commission acknowledged that it did owe the company the amount which was claimed. The Commission then explained that the payment had not been made for lack of budgetary cover, owing, in summary, to the following circumstances:
a) The company's contract fell within the framework of decentralised co-operation in the Mediterranean, and more particularly the MED programmes. What was involved was a series of decentralised co-operation projects between public or private organisations in the Member States of the European Union and their counterparts in the Mediterranean partner countries.
b) Following a preliminary report by the Court of Auditors in October 1995(1), alerting the Commission to the existence of apparent irregularities in management, the Commission decided to suspend forthwith all the MED programmes and cancel all contracts underway.
While the contracts for projects carried out under the former MED programmes had expired when the Commission suspended these programmes in October 1995, 23 projects under the MED-Avicienne programmes were scheduled for implementation between 1995 and 1999.
However, a private agency (ARTM) which had been instructed by the Commission in April 1994 to carry out the MED-Avicienne programme, ceased activity in 1996. As part of the liquidation of its assets, it paid back money to the Commission. The money was entered in the general budget, for which reason external legal commitments covered by the budget lost cover.
The Commission regretted that this situation had arisen, and stated that it had re-established the budgetary commitments and, with it, the outstanding files, including that of the complaint. The rights of the company were accordingly secured.
The second allegation was not addressed in detail in the Commission's opinion; it did, however, make reference to the letter of 16 November 1999 by Commission President Prodi to the complainant.
The complainant's observations
In his observations, the complainant noted that his constituent's case was being dealt with efficiently. He added that he himself would continue to monitor the situation closely.
The complainant also appeared to request the Ombudsman to conduct a more general inquiry into the Commission's acting in the Avicienne-Programmes, with the purpose of determining questions of fault.

THE DECISION

1 The allegations
1.1 In the complaint, the following allegations were made:
- the company had not received payment for work it carried out for the Commission;
- the Commission had failed to respond to the complainant's questions concerning the constituent's claims for payment.
1.2 In his observations, the complainant called for a more general inquiry with the purpose of determining questions of fault in the Commission's handling of the budgetary situation which the Commission had accounted for in its opinion. The Ombudsman considers that this constituted a new claim, which was therefore not taken up for inquiry.
1.3 In respect of the first allegation, the duty of the Commission to pay has been established, and the complainant has informed the Ombudsman that the matter is being dealt with efficiently. It appears, therefore, that this matter has been settled.
1.4 In respect of the second allegation, the correspondence between the complainant and the Commission shows delay as well as failure to reply. The complainant's letter of 23 April 1999 was replied to with a delay of two months. The complainant's letter of 15 July was replied to with a delay of approximately four months. The reminders and information-requests that the complainant sent to the Commission during these periods received no replies. The Ombudsman notes that no evidence or arguments have been put forward to explain these delays and failures to reply.
1.5 The Ombudsman observes that principles of good administration require that letters are replied to within a reasonable time. In this case, the complainant's letters to the Commission were replied to with delays of up to four months and the complainant's reminders and information requests during these periods remained unanswered. The Ombudsman concludes that the duty to reply, and to do so within a reasonable time, was not complied with by the Commission, and accordingly makes a critical remark below.
2 Conclusion
On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, it is necessary to make the following critical remark:

Principles of good administration require that letters are replied to within a reasonable time. In this case, the complainant's letters to the Commission were replied to with delays of up to four months and the complainant's reminders and information requests during these periods remained unanswered. The Ombudsman concludes that the duty to reply, and to do so within a reasonable time, was not complied with by the Commission.

The President of the European Commission will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely
Jacob Söderman

---

(1) OJ C 240, 19.98.1996.