Vuoi presentare una denuncia contro un’istituzione o un organismo dell’UE?
- EN English
Decisione nel caso 3495/2006/GG - Mancata gestione adeguata di un pagamento dovuto per contratto
Decisione
Caso 3495/2006/GG - Aperto(a) il Venerdì | 08 dicembre 2006 - Decisione del Mercoledì | 27 giugno 2007
Il denunciante, un ateneo tedesco, ha partecipato a un progetto nell'ambito del programma Erasmus. La Commissione europea aveva concordato di fornire un aiuto non rimborsabile per un importo massimo di 45 156 EUR, e a tal fine ha versato un anticipo di 40 640 EUR. Al termine del programma, le spese complessive del denunciante ammontavano a 42 833 EUR. La gestione del progetto era stata affidata ad un "Ufficio di assistenza tecnica" (UAT).
Nel marzo 2002 l'UAT ha informato il denunciante che due voci di spesa, per un importo complessivo, rispettivamente, di 5 395 EUR e 4 111 EUR, non erano ritenute ammissibili. L'UAT ha notato che la sovvenzione finale ammontava a 33 327 EUR. Il denunciante ha accettato la deduzione dell'importo di 5 395 EUR e ha restituito questa somma all'UAT. In seguito alle obiezioni sollevate dal denunciante, la Commissione ha considerato ammissibile l'importo di 4 111 EUR. La Commissione ha informato il denunciante che la somma da rimborsare ammontava pertanto a 3 202 EUR.
Secondo il denunciante, questo calcolo non era corretto. Apparentemente, la Commissione aveva sommato l'importo di 4 111 EUR all'importo di 33 327 EUR che era già stato accettato e aveva poi sottratto tale somma (37 438 EUR) dall'importo di 40 640 EUR versato come acconto. In questo modo la Commissione non ha tenuto conto del fatto che il denunciante aveva già restituito un importo pari a 5 395 EUR.
Nel marzo 2004 il denunciante ha informato la Commissione di ritenere che si fosse verificato un errore e che la Commissione in effetti gli doveva un importo pari a 2 193 EUR (ossia, la differenza tra la richiesta della Commissione di 3 202 EUR e l'importo già rimborsato di 5 395 EUR).
Tuttavia, nel maggio 2004, la Commissione ha informato il denunciante che, poiché la somma di 3 202 EUR non era stata rimborsata, questo importo sarebbe stato detratto da altre richieste avanzate dal denunciante nei confronti della Commissione.
Ogni ulteriore sforzo compiuto dal denunciante per convincere la Commissione dell'errore verificatosi si è rivelato infruttuoso.
Nella sua denuncia al Mediatore, il denunciante ha, sostanzialmente, lamentato il fatto che la Commissione non aveva gestito la questione in maniera adeguata. Ha affermato che la Commissione doveva rimborsargli un importo pari a 5 395 EUR, nonché gli interessi per un ammontare di 44,47 EUR.
Nel suo parere, la Commissione ha sottolineato che, dopo aver condotto un esame e alla luce degli elementi probatori forniti dal denunciante, aveva sollecitato il pagamento dell'importo di 5 395 EUR al denunciante. Ha proseguito affermando che questo pagamento gli era stato accreditato sul conto il 20 dicembre 2006. La Commissione inoltre ha deciso di rimborsare al denunciante gli interessi.
Nelle sue osservazioni, il denunciante ha confermato che l'importo in questione era stato interamente rimborsato e si è detto soddisfatto dell'esito del caso. Il denunciante ha ringraziato il Mediatore per l'assistenza fornita.
Il Mediatore ha constatato con soddisfazione che la Commissione aveva intrapreso i passi necessari per risolvere la questione, offrendo una soluzione che il denunciante aveva accolto favorevolmente.
Nella sua decisione il Mediatore ha sottolineato che il servizio della Commissione incaricato della questione (direzione generale dell'Istruzione e della cultura della Commissione) aveva agito tempestivamente nel trattamento della questione. Ne è emerso che il problema principale era stato di fatto risolto entro il 20 dicembre 2006, ossia meno di due settimane dopo la presentazione della denuncia alla Commissione. Il Mediatore pertanto ha riconosciuto alla Commissione, in generale, e alla sua direzione generale dell'Istruzione e della cultura, nello specifico, il merito di aver trattato la denuncia in maniera esemplare.
Strasbourg, 27 June 2007
Dear Mr X,
On 13 November 2006, you, on behalf of a German university, made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission. This complaint concerned the Commission's handling of a project under the Erasmus Programme in which the complainant took part.
On 8 December 2006, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 3 April 2007. I forwarded it to you on 4 April 2007 with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 20 April 2007. In a telephone conversation with my Office on 21 May and in an e-mail you sent on 22 May 2007, you confirmed that you were satisfied with the outcome of this case.
I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.
THE COMPLAINT
The complainant, a German university, took part in a project under the Erasmus Programme. The European Commission agreed to provide a maximum grant of EUR 45 156. An advance payment of EUR 40 640 was made. In the end, the complainant's total expenditure amounted to EUR 42 833.
The handling of the project appears to have been entrusted to a 'Technical Assistance Office' ("TAO").
On 28 March 2002, the TAO informed the complainant that expenditure amounting to EUR 9 506 was not considered eligible. This amount comprised two items of expenditure amounting to EUR 5 395 and EUR 4 111 respectively. The TAO noted that the final grant amounted to EUR 33 327. Taking into account the advance that had been made, an amount of EUR 7 313 thus needed to be reimbursed. The TAO asked the complainant to make the necessary payment within 30 days.
The complainant received the TAO's letter only on 23 April 2002. In an e-mail sent on 30 April 2002, the complainant informed the TAO that it accepted the deduction of the amount of EUR 5 395 and that instructions had been given to return this amount to the TAO. Payment of this sum was made at the beginning of May 2002. However, the complainant stated that it was unable to understand the basis for the deduction of the amount of EUR 4 111. It therefore asked for explanations concerning this deduction.
On 23 May 2002, the TAO provided the necessary explanations. It emerged that the sum of EUR 4 111 covered travel expenses for four flights that the TAO considered to be ineligible.
On 24 May 2002, the complainant informed the TAO that it objected to this decision. On 5 June 2002, the complainant submitted the reasons for this appeal to the TAO.
On 22 December 2003, the Commission informed the complainant that its appeal had been accepted and that the amount of EUR 4 111 was considered eligible. The Commission informed the complainant that the sum to be reimbursed thus amounted to EUR 3 202.
According to the complainant, this calculation was erroneous. It appears that the Commission added the amount of 4 111 to the amount of EUR 33 327 that had already been accepted and then deducted this sum (of EUR 37 438) from the advance of EUR 40 640 that had been granted. The Commission thus omitted to take into account the fact that the complainant had already returned an amount of EUR 5 395.
On 10 February 2004, the Commission sent the complainant a reminder concerning the payment of EUR 3 202 that was still outstanding in its view. The Commission asked the complainant to pay this amount within 15 days.
On 24 February 2004, the complainant asked the Commission for an extension of time so as to make it possible to examine the issue.
On 23 March 2004, and after having examined the matter, the complainant informed the Commission that it considered that an error had occurred and that the Commission in effect owed it an amount of EUR 2 193 (i.e., the difference between the Commission's claim over EUR 3 202 and the amount already reimbursed of 5 395).
By letter dated 6 May 2004, the Commission informed the complainant that given that the sum of EUR 3 202 had not been reimbursed, it would be set off against other claims that the complainant had against the Commission.
In letters of 7 June 2004, 23 September 2004, 20 July 2005 (all these letters being addressed to the Commission's services) and 26 October 2005 (addressed to the Director-General of Directorate-General Education and Culture), the complainant renewed its efforts to convince the Commission of the fact that a mistake had occurred. According to the complainant, none of these letters was answered.
On 26 April 2006, the complainant submitted a first complaint to the Ombudsman (complaint 1343/2006/JMA). Given that the complainant had not submitted any supporting documents, the Ombudsman informed it, by letter of 31 May 2006, that there were insufficient grounds for an inquiry. The Ombudsman advised the complainant that it could lodge a new complaint, provided that it submitted the necessary supporting documents.
On 13 November 2006, the complainant lodged the present complaint. The complainant essentially alleged that the Commission had failed to handle the matter properly. It claimed that the Commission should reimburse an amount of EUR 5 395 and pay interest amounting to EUR 44.47. It appears that the latter amount corresponded to the interest that had been charged by the Commission as regards the allegedly outstanding payment by the complainant.
The complainant added copies of all relevant documents to its complaint, including a copy of a document concerning the repayment of EUR 5 395.
THE INQUIRY
The Commission's opinionIn its opinion, the Commission pointed out that after having taken note of the documents attached to the complaint, an examination had been carried out. The document concerning the repayment of EUR 5 395 was not found, and inquiries made to persons who had worked at BAT at the time proved unsuccessful.
On 20 December 2006, and at the request of the Commission, the complainant sent further evidence (including an excerpt from the relevant bank statement) confirming that the payment of EUR 5 395 had been made. In this letter, the complainant further indicated that given that the amount of the interest was fairly small, it could waive this claim.
The Commission pointed out that in view of the evidence submitted by the complainant, it had hastened to pay back the amount of EUR 5 395 to the complainant. This payment had been debited to the Commission's account on 20 December 2006. Following its correspondence with the complainant, the Commission had also taken the imitative of reimbursing the interest amounting to EUR 44.47 to the complainant. This amount had been debited to the Commission's account on 1 February 2007.
The complainant's observationsIn its observations of 20 April 2007, in a telephone conversation with the Ombudsman's Office on 21 May 2007 and in an e-mail of 22 May 2007, the complainant confirmed that the relevant amount had been reimbursed in its entirety and that it was satisfied with the outcome of this case. The complainant thanked the Ombudsman for his assistance in this case.
THE DECISION
1 The relevant facts1.1 The complainant, a German university, took part in a project under the Erasmus Programme. The European Commission agreed to provide a maximum grant of EUR 45 156. An advance payment of EUR 40 640 was made. In the end, the complainant's total expenditure amounted to EUR 42 833. The handling of the project was entrusted to a 'Technical Assistance Office' ("TAO").
1.2 On 28 March 2002, the TAO informed the complainant that expenditure amounting to EUR 9 506 was not considered eligible. This amount comprised two items of expenditure amounting to EUR 5 395 and EUR 4 111 respectively. The TAO noted that the final grant amounted to EUR 33 327. The complainant informed the TAO that it accepted the deduction of the amount of EUR 5 395 and that instructions had been given to return this amount to the TAO. However, the complainant stated that it was unable to understand the basis for the deduction of the amount of EUR 4 111. Following the complainant's objections, the Commission informed the complainant that the amount of EUR 4 111 was considered eligible. The Commission informed the complainant that the sum to be reimbursed thus amounted to EUR 3 202.
1.3 According to the complainant, this calculation was erroneous. It appears that the Commission added the amount of 4 111 to the amount of EUR 33 327 that had already been accepted and then deducted this sum (of EUR 37 438) from the advance of EUR 40 640 that had been granted. The Commission thus omitted to take into account the fact that the complainant had already returned an amount of EUR 5 395.
1.4 On 23 March 2004, the complainant informed the Commission that it considered that an error had occurred and that the Commission in effect owed it an amount of EUR 2 193 (i.e., the difference between the Commission's claim over EUR 3 202 and the amount already reimbursed of 5 395).
1.5 By letter dated 6 May 2004, the Commission informed the complainant that given that the sum of EUR 3 202 had not been reimbursed, it would be set off against other claims that the complainant had against the Commission.
1.6 The complainant's further efforts to convince the Commission of the fact that a mistake had occurred were unsuccessful.
1.7 On 13 November 2006, the complainant lodged the present complaint.
2 Alleged failure properly to handle payment due under contract2.1 The complainant essentially alleged that the Commission had failed to handle the matter properly. It claimed that the Commission should reimburse an amount of EUR 5 395 and pay interest amounting to EUR 44.47. It appears that the latter amount corresponded to the interest that had been charged by the Commission as regards the allegedly outstanding payment by the complainant.
2.2 The complaint was forwarded to the Commission for an opinion on 8 December 2006.
2.3 In its opinion, the Commission pointed out that after it had taken note of the documents attached to the complaint, an examination had been carried out. On 20 December 2006, and at the request of the Commission, the complainant had sent further evidence (including an excerpt from the relevant bank statement) confirming that the payment of EUR 5 395 had been made. The Commission explained out that in view of the evidence submitted by the complainant, it had hastened to pay back the amount of EUR 5 395 to the complainant. This payment had been debited to the Commission's account on 20 December 2006. Following its correspondence with the complainant, the Commission had also taken the imitative of reimbursing the interest amounting to EUR 44.47 to the complainant. This amount had been debited to the Commission's account on 1 February 2007.
2.4 In its observations, the complainant confirmed that the relevant amount had been reimbursed in its entirety and that it was satisfied with the outcome of this case. The complainant thanked the Ombudsman for his assistance in this case.
2.5 The Ombudsman is pleased to note that the Commission has taken steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied the complainant.
2.6 It appears appropriate to draw attention to the fact that the service of the Commission in charge of the matter (the Commission's Directorate-General Education and Culture) acted rapidly to deal with this matter. It appears that the main issue was effectively solved by 20 December 2006, i.e., less than two weeks after the complaint had been forwarded to the Commission. The Ombudsman would like to commend the Commission in general and its Directorate-General Education and Culture in particular for the exemplary way in which this complaint was handled.
3 ConclusionIt appears from the Commission’s comments and the complainant's observations that the Commission has taken steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied the complainant. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
The President of the European Commission will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely,
P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS