Dear Mrs V.,
On 24 March 1999, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman relating to the Copenhagen European Cultural Capital 1996.
On 25 May 1999, I forwarded the complaint to the President of European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 13 October 1999 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.
I am writing now to let you know the result of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

At the Copenhagen European Cultural Capital 1996, the complainant participated in the exhibition of contemporary international art called City Space. In March 1999, she complained to the European Ombudsman alleging mismanagement by the European Commission at the Cultural Capital. The complainant held the Commission responsible for several incidents that had occurred during the Cultural Capital such as launching an unreliable inquiry, covering up for the Cultural Capital, failure to pay the complainant's fee, obstruction of the sale of her work on the show City Space, paying her with a check that the Bank refused and keeping the insurance money after her work had been destroyed. In 1997 and 1998, the complainant tried to solve the matter with the Commission but later she addressed a complaint to the Ombudsman alleging that the Commission was responsible for the mismanagement at the Cultural Capital.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion
In its opinion, the Commission stated that the complainant had entered into a contract with the Danish organisation City Space and that this contract laid down the conditions under which the complainant participated in an exhibition of contemporary international art which was part of the official programme of the Copenhagen European Cultural Capital 1996. As the complainant had expressed her dissatisfaction to the Commission about the organisation of the project, the Commission had sent her a letter on 19 August 1998, expressing its standpoint. The Commission was of the view that the Cultural Capital was not a Community initiative but rather an intergovernmental initiative. The responsible organisers are chosen by the organising states and the Commission's role was limited to granting a subvention to the responsible organisers. The Commission also stated that any damage caused by the Community institutions had to be considered under the conditions of non-contractual liability (Article 288 (2) of the EC Treaty), however, the Commission considered it clear that the requirements were not met.
In July 1998, the Commission wrote to Horten & Partnere, the law firm representing the foundation, to inquire about the complainant's situation. Horten & Partnere replied in October 1998, explaining that the project City Space was an external project, meaning that it was partly financed by the foundation Cultural Capital but controlled entirely by the persons responsible for the project. The foundation had no influence upon the contractual relationship between City Space and the complainant. Horten & Partnere had been in contact with City Space and was informed that City Space had proposed a settlement which had been turned down by the complainant. Since the conflict between City Space and the complainant was governed by a written agreement between the two, to which the foundation was not a party, it could not interfere in the dispute. Horten & Partnere concluded that the complainant had to take the case to a Danish court if she was not satisfied.
The Commission concluded that its responsibility for the Copenhagen European Cultural Capital 1996 was limited to granting a smaller subvention to the foundation and to verify, on the basis of a report and on a statement of account, the correct use of the granted subvention.
The complainant's observations
The complainant's observations The Commission's opinion was forwarded to the complainant who was invited to submit observations. No observations appear to have been received from the complainant.

THE DECISION

1 Mismanagement at the Copenhagen European Cultural Capital 1996
1.1 The complainant alleged that the European Commission was responsible for mismanagement at the Copenhagen European Cultural Capital 1996. The complainant put forward a series of incidents that had caused her damage during her participation in the Cultural Capital.
1.2 The Commission stated that its participation in the Cultural Capital was limited to granting a subvention and verifying that it had been used correctly. It stated that the Cultural Capital was not a Community initiative and that the foundation responsible for organising it is chosen by the responsible states. The Commission also pointed out that it could not be held liable for the damage caused to the complainant.
1.3 The Ombudsman observes that, according to the Conclusions of the Ministers of Culture meeting of 12 November 1992(1), it is the Council that designates the European cities of culture upon applications made by national governments. The Ombudsman also observes that the Resolution of the Ministers responsible for Cultural Affairs of 13 June 1985(2) states: "The Member States in which the designated 'European City of Culture' lies decides which authority inside the Member States will take responsibility for organizing and financing the event.". It appears therefore that the Commission has no direct responsibility for the Copenhagen European Cultural Capital 1996. The responsibility of the Commission is limited to verifying the correct use of the subvention that it grants to the Cultural Capital.
1.4 It is clear that the Commission contacted Horten & Partnere, the law firm representing the foundation, to inquire about the problems of the complainant. Horten & Partnere informed the Commission of the contract between the complainant and City Space. Horten & Partnere had been in contact with City Space regarding the problems of the complainant and concluded that she could take her case to a Danish court. The Ombudsman therefore notes that the Commission did inquire about the situation of the complainant. There appears to be no obligation for the Commission to act further as regards the complainant's problems relating to the Copenhagen European Cultural Capital 1996.
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

---

(1) Conclusions of the Ministers of Culture meeting within the Council of 12 November 1992 on the procedure for designation of European cities of culture, OJ C 336/3.

(2) Resolution of the Ministers responsible for Cultural Affairs, meeting within the Council, of 13 June 1985 concerning the annual event 'European City of Culture', OJ C 153/2.