Strasbourg, 28 November 2006

Dear Mr S.,

On 3 July 2005, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the reimbursement of travel expenses.

On 30 August 2005, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 30 November 2005 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. No observations have been received from you.

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

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the facts are, in summary, as follows:

On 7 July 2003, the complainant went to Luxembourg in order to attend an interview and a related medical examination for a post that had been advertised by the European Commission. On 29 December 2003, the complainant received reimbursement for his travel expenses, amounting to EUR 105.60. By e-mail dated 22 January 2004, the complainant informed the Commission that the amount should be higher. He referred to the distance between his town of residence and Luxembourg. By e-mail dated 29 January 2004, the Commission informed the complainant how the reimbursement had been calculated. The complainant was informed that he could contact Mr O. in case he had further questions. The complainant wrote to Mr O., informing him that the journey should have been reimbursed at EUR 193.20, this being the cheapest price for a second-class return ticket between his town of residence and Luxembourg. The reimbursement paid by the Commission was EUR 105.60. On 3 February 2004, Mr O. informed the complainant that the amount calculated for his reimbursement was correct.

In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Commission had reimbursed him on the basis of a wrong train fare. He claimed that the Commission should pay him the difference between what he considered to be the correct train fare and the fare used by the Commission to calculate his reimbursement.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion, the Commission recognised that its calculation of the travel expenses had, in fact, not been correct. It explained in some detail how it had carried out a recalculation. The Commission's recalculation had resulted in a sum slightly lower than the sum mentioned by the complainant (EUR 181.20 instead of EUR 193.20). The Commission would proceed immediately to pay the complainant EUR 75.60, this being the difference between the initial reimbursement of EUR 105.60 and EUR 181.20.

The Commission apologised for its error in calculating the reimbursement initially paid to the complainant.

The complainant's observations

The Ombudsman received no observations from the complainant.

THE DECISION

1 The allegation of incorrect reimbursement

1.1 On 7 July 2003, the complainant went to Luxembourg in order to attend an interview and a related medical examination for a post that had been advertised by the European Commission. On 29 December 2003, the complainant received reimbursement for his travel expenses amounting to EUR 105.60. By e-mail dated 22 January 2004, the complainant informed the Commission that the amount should be higher. He referred to the distance between his town of residence and Luxembourg. By e-mail dated 29 January 2004, the Commission informed the complainant how the reimbursement had been calculated. The complainant was informed that he could contact Mr O. in case he had further questions. The complainant wrote to Mr O., informing him that the journey should have been reimbursed at EUR 193.20, this being the cheapest price for a second-class return ticket between his town of residence and Luxembourg. The reimbursement paid by the Commission was EUR 105.60. On 3 February 2004, Mr O. informed the complainant that the amount calculated for his reimbursement was correct. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Commission had reimbursed him on the basis of a wrong train fare. The complainant claimed that the Commission should pay him the difference between what he considered to be the correct train fare and the fare used by the Commission to calculate his reimbursement.

1.2 In its opinion, the Commission recognised that its calculation of the travel expenses had, in fact, not been correct. It explained in some detail how it had carried out a recalculation. The Commission's recalculation had resulted in a sum slightly lower than the sum mentioned by the complainant (EUR 181.20 instead of EUR 193.20). The Commission would proceed immediately to pay the complainant EUR 75.60, this being the difference between the initial reimbursement of EUR 105.60 and EUR 181.20. The Commission apologised for its error in calculating the reimbursement initially paid to the complainant. The Commission's opinion was forwarded to the complainant for observations. The Ombudsman received no observations from the complainant.

1.3 The Commission has thus taken steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied, at least in large part, the complainant's claim. For this reason and taking into account that the complainant has not made observations on the Commission's opinion (and has neither disputed the propriety of the Commission's recalculation of the reimbursement nor indicated that the Commission did not make the relevant additional payment), no further inquiry into and consideration of the complaint is justified.

2 Conclusion

It appears from the above 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 Commission will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS