Dear Mrs. K.,
On 12 September 1998, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the treatment of your application for a grant within the Socrates programme and in particular the fact that the European Commission demanded reimbursement of the grant.
On 22 September 1998, my services asked you to provide further documentation regarding your complaint. On 29 September 1998, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission. On 4 January 1999, the Commission sent its opinion and I forwarded it to you on 14 January 1999 with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. On 28 January 1999, you sent your observations on the Commission's opinion.
I am now writing to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

In February 1996, the complainant, a teacher at the public school of education for adults, applied for a grant within the Socrates programme of DG XXII of the Commission. The grant was meant to widen the intellectual horizon of low-educated women by meeting people in the same situation in other Member States. A decision whether the grant was awarded should have been communicated to the complainant in June 1996. Only in September 1996 the complainant was informed that she had been awarded ECU 2000 to perform preparatory visits. The money finally arrived in May 1997, 8-9 months later.
In May 1997, when the money arrived, the complainant was occupied with examinations and she had to postpone the realisation of the project. It then appeared that the schools that had invited the complainant for preparatory visits in the spring of 1996, were no longer interested in continuing the project. The complainant, therefore, wrote to the Commission twice, asking if she could postpone the visit to January 1998. She did not receive any replies, which she considered to be a positive answer. In January 1998 the complainant went to Kensington-Chelsea College in London and established a partnership.
In March 1998, the Commission sent the complainant a request for reimbursement of the grant. The complainant sent the Commission a letter explaining the situation enclosing all the relevant documents including a copy of the partnership agreement with Kensington-Chelsea College. The complainant then received a reminder of the reimbursement request asking for immediate payment. Again, the complainant sent a letter explaining the situation. The complainant then received an unfriendly letter insisting on repayment. The letter further referred to the fact that late payment of the grant was caused by the complainant not sending her bank details. This was completely new to the complainant.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion
In its opinion, the Commission shortly explained the aim of the Socrates programme. It then pointed out that the delayed payment, from September 1996 until May 1997, was caused by the complainant not sending the Commission bank details and signature of the legal representative of the project. However, the Commission expressed understanding that further delays had caused problems for the complainant.
The Commission pointed out that the preparatory visit took place outside the time set out in the contract and that the complainant, in changing the cooperation partner indicated in the contract, had decided to change the conditions of the contract unilaterally. According to the Commission, the Technical Assistance Office was, therefore, correct in requesting reimbursement of the grant. However, the Technical Assistance Office did not rule out that administrative irregularities could have taken place when requesting repayment. The Commission regretted that the situation had occurred and considered that it should take into account the problems the complainant had to face. It, therefore, decided to prolong the term of the agreement so that the visits performed by the complainant fall within the term.
The Commission finally noted that the applicant had to fulfill the commitments as laid down in the terms of the agreement. This includes supplying the Commission with all the information regarding the change of cooperation partner and the final report. The Commission would then make the final approval of the project.
The complainants' observations
In her observations, the complainant stated the following:
The complainant was happy with the fact that the Technical Assistance Office did not rule out that administrative irregularities could have taken place when requesting reimbursement of the grant.
The complainant contested that she had changed the conditions of the contract unilaterally, referring to the letters sent to the Technical Assistance Office, asking to postpone the visit and the fact that she did not receive any replies from the Office. The complainant further pointed out, that she under no circumstances had the intention of not fulfilling the commitments of the contract. She stated that this is obvious from her letter of 10 June 1998, in which she welcomed the evaluation request and submitting of the final report.
In a telephone call from the Office of the Ombudsman to the complainant, the complainant expressed satisfaction with the fact that the reimbursement request had been withdrawn.

THE DECISION

1. The Commission's request for reimbursement of the grant
The Commission requested reimbursement of the grant on the grounds that the complainant performed the preparatory visit outside the time-table set out in the contract and that the complainant changed the conditions of the contract unilaterally. However, the Commission stated that it cannot rule out that administrative irregularities could have taken place when requesting reimbursement of the grant. The Commission therefore decided to prolong the term of the agreement so that the visit performed by the complainant falls within the term.A copy of the full decision is enclosed.
2. Conclusion
It appears from the Commission's comments and the complainants's observations that the Commission has taken steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied the complainant. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.
The President of the European Commission will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely
Jacob SÖDERMAN