Strasbourg, 15 September 2006

Dear Mr X,

On 17 March 2005, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission concerning the "Marie Curie Fellowship programme- Improving Human Potential”. By e-mail of 1 April 2005, you sent me further documents related to your complaint.

On 14 April 2005, I forwarded the complaint and your further e-mail of 1 April 2005 to the President of the Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 13 July 2005. On 21 July 2005, I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 30 July 2005.

In an e-mail of 27 April 2006, you requested information on the state of progress of your complaint. On 12 May 2006, I replied to you that you would be informed of the next step to be taken in the framework of your complaint as soon as possible and before 30 June 2006 at the latest. On 10 July 2006, I wrote you to announce that you would be informed of the next step to be taken in the framework of your complaint by 31 August 2006 instead of by 30 June 2006. On 16 August 2006, I wrote to inform you that I would let you know of the next step in the inquiry by 15 September 2006 instead.

I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made. I apologise for the delay in the treatment of your complaint.

THE COMPLAINT

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

In 2000-2001, the complainant, a postdoctoral researcher, was awarded a Marie Curie Individual fellowship by the European Commission in order to carry out a research project in a host institute located in a Member State of the European Union.

When he started his research project in the host institute, the complainant realised that the conditions necessary for the proper implementation of his project were not being met. The complainant found out that the host institute was not a research institute but rather a private consultancy company. When he informed the Commission that he was unable to carry out his project under these conditions and that he wished to be transferred to an appropriate institute, the Commission pointed out that such a transfer required the agreement of the Director of the host institute. The complainant then decided to carry out his research independently while seeking an arrangement with the Commission and the Director of the host institute. He argued that he did not receive any answer from the Commission or the Director of the host institute.

In January 2003, the host institute stopped paying the complainant the fellowship, further to which he decided to put an end to his research. The complainant requested the Commission to give him information on the situation. He was informed that the Commission had not received any information from the host institute. In April 2003, the complainant submitted his research report to the Commission in which he pointed out that he had been unable to carry out his research in the host institute and that the latter had failed to pay him the amounts corresponding to his fellowship for January and February 2003, without any notification.

In his complaint to the European Ombudsman, the complainant submitted the following allegations:

1. The Commission had failed to inform him of the reasons why it neither obliged the host institute to comply with its obligations as set out in the fellowship contract, nor made it possible for him to be transferred to another institute.
2. The Commission had failed to inform him about the decision to stop paying him the amounts corresponding to his fellowship.
3. The Commission had failed to inform him about the remaining amounts corresponding to his fellowship, which he was not able to use for his research.

The complainant claimed that (i) he should be given the possibility to benefit from the remaining amounts corresponding to his fellowship. He further claimed that (ii) the Commission should overhaul the procedure regarding the Marie Curie fellowships and supervise the implementation of fellowships more thoroughly.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

The opinion of the Commission on the complaint was, in summary, as follows:

Following the positive evaluation of the proposal jointly submitted by the host institute and the complainant, the contract for a Marie-Curie individual fellowship was concluded on 8 March 2001 between the Commission and the above-mentioned institute, under the Fifth Framework Programme, in order to support the complainant’s research project.

Pursuant to Article 2(1) of the contract, the foreseen duration of the project was 24 months from its starting date, that is, 8 September 2001. On 11 April 2002, an amendment to the contract was made in order to postpone the starting date of the project to 6 May 2002.

According to the Commission, the complainant had, since the beginning of the fellowship, complained about the research facilities of the host institute and about the difficulties he experienced when trying to reach an agreement with the scientific supervisor on the methodology and implementation of his research project. The Commission services therefore remained in contact, especially through telephone conversations, with both parties, that is, the complainant and the host institute, in order to ascertain the effective conditions of the implementation of the project.

In June 2002, the complainant left the host institute in order to carry out his project independently. The complainant asked for the possibility of a change of the host institute but he was informed by the Commission that such a modification of the contract could not be accepted given that it required a substantial modification of the original contract evaluated by a panel of independent experts. The complainant was further informed by the Commission that, in exceptional circumstances, the latter could consider the possibility of examining his request, provided that the host institute had agreed to terminate the contract and to submit the request to the Commission. However, in the complainant's case, the host institute did not address any request for such a modification of the contract to the Commission.

The Commission pointed out that, in December 2002, the host institute stopped paying the fellowship to the complainant. In a letter of 27 March 2003 to the Commission, the host institute requested the early termination of the contract. Following the Commission's request, the host institute submitted, on 12 November 2003, the final scientific and financial reports for an eight-month period and a separate detailed assessment of the complainant's work during his fellowship. In the Commission’s view, several elements were missing from the mentioned reports, in particular, the sections including the information to be provided by the complainant. In addition, the financial report was not signed by the complainant.

Following receipt of the reports, the request for early termination, and further contacts with the complainant and the legal representative of the host institute, the contract was terminated by the Commission. On 16 September 2003, the unused part of the pre-financed amount was recovered and the de-commitment of the remaining amount that would never be used was initiated.

As regards the first allegation, namely, the alleged failure of the Commission to inform the complainant of the reasons why it did not oblige the host institute to comply with its obligations as set out in the fellowship contract, the Commission noted that, pursuant to the usual structure of the fellowships awarded under the Fifth Framework Programme, the contractual parties were the Commission and the above-mentioned host institute. Therefore, any issue concerning the implementation of the contract, including the financial aspects related to the execution of the project, should be managed by the Commission with the host institute concerned. The complainant had to sign an agreement with the host institute, allowing him to receive the monthly payments according to the rules and conditions laid down by the Commission in the contract with the host institute itself. No direct contractual relationship between the Commission and the complainant existed, and the agreement, including the working conditions, was entirely governed by the law of the host country, namely, Italian law. Therefore, given that the Commission was a third party in the agreement concluded between the complainant and the host institute, it had no legal means to enforce the execution of this agreement. However, as emerged from the declaration of the complainant, the Commission services were constantly in contact with both parties in order to contribute to a positive solution.

In its letter of 27 March 2003, the host institute informed the Commission that the complainant had left the host institute and had not returned. The Commission underlined that, pursuant to Article 8(2) of the General Conditions, in case of early termination of the contract based on the non-fulfilment of the obligation of the agreement, "[t]he Commission shall not object to the termination of the contract, at the written request of the contractor, on the grounds mentioned in paragraph 1(b) and (c) of this Article".

The Commission stated that, as regards the complainant's request to be transferred to another institute, this was not a priori possible. The Commission was not in a position to oblige by any means the host institute to find an agreement with the complainant in this respect. The proposal for the research project was submitted jointly by the host institute and the complainant but only the host institute entered into the agreement with the Commission. A transfer to another host institute implied that the contract between the Commission and the original host institute would have to be amended. Such an amendment could only be made in exceptional circumstances and only the host institute could make such request, with the explicit agreement of the new host institute and the researcher.

As regards the second allegation, namely, the alleged failure of the Commission to inform the complainant about the decision to stop paying him the amounts corresponding to his fellowship, the Commission pointed out that, according to the contractual structure of the Individual Fellowship, the European Communities contributions were paid to the host institute and not to the complainant. There was, therefore, no contractual obligation to inform the complainant about the termination of the contract between the Commission and the host institute. Furthermore, the termination of that contract was the direct consequence of the termination of the agreement signed between the host institute and the complainant.

As regards the third allegation, namely, the alleged failure of the Commission to inform the complainant about the remaining amounts corresponding to his fellowship that he had not been able to use for his research, the Commission stated that, once the contract was terminated, the unused part of the Community financial contribution had to be returned by the contractor to the Commission. Pursuant to Article 11 of the Financial Regulation, "[w]here the amounts are de-committed as a result of total or partial non-implementation of the actions for which they were earmarked, in any financial year after that in which the appropriations were entered into the budget, the appropriations concerned shall be cancelled". The Commission was therefore no more able to make use of this amount for the complainant.

Concerning the complainant’s claim that he should be given the possibility to benefit from the remaining amounts corresponding to his fellowship, the Commission stated that it appeared that the complainant claimed the amounts corresponding to his fellowship for the months of January and February 2003, and that he should address his employer on this matter, given that these payments were related to the agreement signed with the host institute.

Concerning the complainant's claim that the Commission should overhaul the procedure regarding the Marie Curie fellowships and supervise the implementation of fellowships more thoroughly, the Commission underlined that, throughout the entire duration of the contract in question, the Commission services remained regularly in contact with both parties and made all the (legally) possible efforts in order to find a suitable solution. In the Commission’s view, as it clearly emerged from the constant contacts between the Commission’s services, the host organisation and the complainant, adequate supervision on the implementation of the contract was provided within the limits defined by the structure of the different contractual relationships.

The complainant's observations

In his observations, dated 30 July 2005, the complainant maintained his complaint and made, in summary, the following further comments:

The complainant maintained that the host institute had failed to provide an adequate environment for the realisation of his research project. It was true that the Commission had indeed no contractual obligations towards him, but essentially towards the host institute and vice versa. However, the complainant considered that he had the exclusive responsibility for the realisation of the project.

The complainant acknowledged that the possibilities for the Commission to intervene were very limited. The complainant was informed by the Commission that the only way in which it could intervene was to terminate the contract with the host institute. The complainant was further informed that the contract might be changed and a transfer authorised if the host institute would agree. However, the complainant stated that he was also informed that the host institute was reluctant to agree to the termination of the contract between it and the Commission since it was afraid of losing the Commission’s support for other projects.

In its opinion, the Commission stated that its services had constantly been in contact with both parties. However, it was the complainant himself who had contacted the Commission and not the Commission which had contacted him. In the complainant’s view, even if, as stated by the Commission in its opinion, there had been contact between him and the host institute when submitting jointly the proposal to the Commission, such contact did not enable him to become aware of the alleged problems in the implementation of his project.

The complainant did not have any choice but to sign the contract proposed to him, in a language he did not speak. When the complainant asked the Commission for assistance and advice on the contract, he was told that the Commission would essentially verify whether the grant that it provided was mentioned in the contract. The complainant had asked the host institute to provide him with a draft contract before his arrival in order to give him the possibility to verify the terms of the contract, but it refused to do so, stating that it could not do so before the signature of a contract with the Commission. The Commission was also informed about this.

Contrary to the Commission’s statement, the complainant did not leave the host institute in June 2002. On this date, he went to Bosnia for a first research trip. The Director of the host institute had been informed accordingly. The complainant then returned to his home country in order to make administrative arrangements. Later, the complainant was on sick leave. The host institute had been closed during parts of the summer.

In its opinion, the Commission pointed out that the financial report had not been signed by the complainant. However, the Commission did not request any explanation from the host institute on this point. The complainant sent his reports to the Commission in May 2003, within the deadline required by the initial contract. In these reports, the complainant outlined the problems he encountered when implementing his project. The complainant was never sent a copy of the final scientific and financial reports presented by the host institute to the Commission. Nor did the complainant ever get a reaction from the Commission on his report.

The complainant made proposals to improve the implementation of the Marie Curie fellowships. He suggested that the Commission should, inter alia, clearly outline the obligations of the host institute towards the fellow and oblige those on the host institute to respect them as well as ensure that the national contact points or any other institute assist the fellow in the procedure of negotiating a contract with the host institute.

The complainant further argued that the aim of the Marie Curie Fellowship Programme, that is, to support young European researchers in their careers and to strengthen research in the EU, had not been achieved. In that context, the complainant suggested that the Ombudsman comment on the effectiveness of the Commission’s procedure and request a full overview of the Marie Curie Fellowship programme specifying more particularly the results that were to be achieved.

THE DECISION

1 The scope of the Ombudsman's inquiry

1.1 In 2000-2001, the complainant, a postdoctoral researcher, was awarded a Marie Curie Individual fellowship by the European Commission in order to carry out a research project in a host institute in a Member State of the European Union. When he started his research project in the host institute, the complainant formed the view that the conditions for a proper development of his project were not met. When he informed the Commission that he was unable to carry out his project under these conditions and that he wished to be transferred to an appropriate institute, the Commission pointed out that such a transfer required the agreement of the Director of the host institute. The complainant then decided to carry out his research independently while seeking an agreement with the Commission and the Director of the host institute. In January 2003, the host institute stopped paying the complainant the fellowship and he decided to put an end to his research.

In his complaint to the European Ombudsman, the complainant alleged (i) that the Commission had failed to inform him of the reasons why it neither obliged the host institute to comply with its obligations as set out in the fellowship contract nor made it possible for him to be transferred to another institute. The complainant further alleged (ii) that the Commission had failed to inform him about the decision to stop paying him the amounts corresponding to his fellowship. The complainant finally alleged (iii) that the Commission had failed to inform him about the remaining amounts corresponding to his fellowship that he was not able to use for his research. The complainant claimed that (i) he should be given the possibility to benefit from the remaining amounts corresponding to his fellowship. He further claimed that (ii) the Commission should overhaul the procedure regarding the Marie Curie fellowships and supervise the implementation of fellowships more thoroughly.

1.2 The Ombudsman notes that, in his observations on the Commission's opinion, the complainant made two further allegations which appear to be directed against the host institute, namely that 1) he had not had any choice but to sign the contract proposed to him by the host institute, which was drafted in a language he did not speak, and that 2) the host institute failed to provide him with a draft contract before his arrival.

1.3 In this regard, the Ombudsman would like to recall that, on the basis of Article 2(1) of the Ombudsman's Statute, his mandate is limited to the Community institutions and bodies and that he has no power to investigate the behaviour of a private institute in a Member State. The Ombudsman is therefore not in a position to examine these further allegations.

1.4 The Ombudsman would furthermore like to point out that the present inquiry only concerns the three allegations that the complainant has submitted in his complaint and that were set out in the opening letter. The complainant, who was informed of the scope of this inquiry, did not challenge this approach in his observations. As regards the facts on which the present decision is based, the Ombudsman notes that the complainant does not appear to challenge the Commission's submission that his contract with the host institute was terminated by the latter. Should the complainant wish the Ombudsman to deal with further allegations, he remains free to submit a new complaint to the Ombudsman, provided that the appropriate prior approaches have been made. However, and as mentioned above, the Ombudsman would not be competent to examine allegations of maladministration that are not directed at Community institutions or bodies, for example allegations against the host institute.

2 The alleged failure of the Commission to inform the complainant of the reasons why it neither obliged the host institute to comply with its obligations as set out in the fellowship contract nor made it possible for him to be transferred to another institute

2.1 In his complaint, the complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to inform him of the reasons why it neither (i) obliged the host institute to comply with its obligations as set out in the fellowship contract nor (ii) made it possible for him to be transferred to another institute.

2.2 In its opinion, the Commission stated that, as regards point (i), no direct contractual relationship between itself and the complainant existed and that the agreement, including the working conditions, was entirely governed by the law of the host country. Given that the Commission was a third party in the agreement concluded between the complainant and the host institute, it had no legal means to enforce the execution of this agreement. However, as it emerged from the declaration of the complainant, the Commission services were constantly in contact with both parties in order to contribute to a positive solution. The Commission further stated that, by letter of 27 March 2003, the host institute had informed it that the complainant had left the host institute and had not returned. In this context, the Commission referred to Article 8(2) of the General Conditions, pursuant to which, in case of early termination of the contract based on the non-fulfilment of the obligation of the agreement, "[t]he Commission shall not object to the termination of the contract, at the written request of the contractor, on the grounds mentioned in paragraph 1(b) and (c) of this Article".

As regards point (ii), the Commission stated that the transfer to another institute was not a priori possible. The Commission informed the complainant that such a modification of the contract could not be accepted given that it required a substantial modification of the original contract evaluated by a panel of independent experts. The Commission further informed the complainant that, in exceptional circumstances, it could consider the possibility of examining his request, provided that the host institute had agreed to withdraw from the contract and submit the request to the Commission. However, the Commission stated that, in the complainant's case, the host institute did not address to the Commission any request for such a modification of the contract.

2.3 In his observations, the complainant acknowledged that the Commission had indeed no contractual obligations towards him, but essentially towards the host institute and vice versa and that the possibilities for the Commission to intervene were very limited. The complainant stated that he was informed by the Commission that the only way in which it could intervene was to terminate the contract with the host institute and that the contract might be changed and a transfer authorised if the host institute would agree. However, the complainant stated that he was also informed that the host institute was reluctant to agree to such a change since it was afraid of losing the Commission’s support for other projects. With regard to the Commission's statement that its services had constantly been in contact with both parties, the complainant observed that it was him who had contacted the Commission and not the Commission which had contacted him. In the complainant’s view, even if, as stated by the Commission in its opinion, there had been contact between him and the host institute when submitting jointly the proposal to the Commission, such contact did not enable him to become aware of the alleged problems in the implementation of his project.

2.4 The Ombudsman would first like to note that the structure of the Marie Curie fellowship in the present case is governed by four documents, involving three different contracting parties:

1. the contract signed on 8 March 2001 between the Commission and the host institute or contractor (the University located in the Member State) (hereinafter “the Contract”)
2. the Description of the Marie Curie Project (Annex I to the Contract);
3. the General Conditions of the Contract (Annex II to the Contract), which also sets out the contractor's and the fellow's obligations; and
4. the agreement concluded between the complainant and the host institute (part of the University located in the Member State), (hereinafter “the Agreement”) concluded on 6 May 2002, in accordance with Article 1(3) of the Contract.

2.5 In order to deal with the complainant’s allegations and claims below, the Ombudsman finds it appropriate to recall the most relevant provisions that clarify the obligations and rights of the three parties involved in the Marie Curie Project, namely, the Commission, the host institute, and the complainant. First, as regards the contractor’s (that is, the host institute's) relationship with the fellow, the Ombudsman notes that, pursuant to Article 3(1) of the General Conditions of the Contract, "[t]he contractor is required to conclude a written agreement with the fellow. This agreement shall determine, in accordance with the contract, the conditions for implementing the project and the respective rights and obligations of the fellow and the contractor. This contract shall be annexed to the agreement. The agreement shall specify in particular a) the amounts received by the contractor for the benefit of the fellow pursuant to the contract and the arrangements for payment of the amounts due to the fellow; b) the law applicable to the agreement; c) that the fellow is covered under the social security scheme which is applied to employed workers within the Member State (…)."

The Ombudsman further notes that Article 2(1) of the General Conditions of the Contract states that "[t]he contractor shall ensure that the project described in Annex I is implemented in accordance with the contract. The contractor is the intermediary between the fellow and the Commission. It is responsible, in particular, for transmitting, to the Commission, all documents and correspondence relating to the project". The Ombudsman further notes that, pursuant to Article 2(2)(i) of the General Conditions of the Contract, "[i]n particular, the contractor is required i) to notify the Commission without delay as soon as it is aware of any circumstances likely to affect the performance of this contract (...)".

As regards the termination of the Contract, the Ombudsman notes that Article 8(1) of the General Conditions of the Contract provides that " [t]he Commission may terminate the contract: a) when the contractor or the fellow terminates the project or pursuant to Article 6 of this Annex; b) when the agreement between the contractor and the fellow is terminated due to non respect of their obligations under the agreement" , and Article 8(2) of the General Conditions of the Contract states that "[t]he Commission shall not object to the termination of the contract, at the written request of the contractor, on the grounds mentioned in paragraph 1(b) and (c) of this Article".

2.6 As regards the facts of the present complaint, it appears from the documents in the file that the contractor informed the Commission by letter of 27 March 2003 that, since 1 January 2003, it had not had any relationship with the complainant and that, due to health problems, he had left the Institute on 11 June 2002 and had never returned. In this letter, the contractor further informed the Commission that, despite its repeated invitations to the complainant to return to the Institute in order to discuss the research project, the complainant never considered returning to the host institute and disregarded all opportunities offered to develop the research project. Finally, in this letter, the contractor informed the Commission that it had therefore terminated its Agreement with the complainant on 31 December 2002. It appears that, further to this letter from the contractor, the Commission decided to terminate the Contract with the host institute and, thus, the research project.

2.7 As regards the complainant's allegation that the Commission had failed to inform him of the reasons why it did not oblige the host institute to comply with its obligations as set out in the Contract, it appears from the contractual structure described above that the Commission had no contractual obligations towards the complainant. In his observations, the complainant acknowledged this.

2.8 The Ombudsman notes that, in its opinion, the Commission pointed out that the host institute informed it that the Agreement between the latter and the complainant had been terminated on 31 December 2002. As the Ombudsman has already noted above (see point 1.4), the complainant did not, in his observations, appear to dispute the fact that the Agreement had been terminated. The Ombudsman therefore considers that, in view of the termination of the Agreement between the host institute and the complainant, there appears to have been no reason for the Commission to oblige the host institute to comply with its obligations set out in the Contract. In view of this and of the lack of contractual obligations of the Commission towards the complainant, the Ombudsman considers that there appears to have been no obligation for the Commission to inform the complainant of the reasons why, in the latter’s view, it did not oblige the host institute to comply with its obligations.

2.9 As regards the complainant’s allegation that the Commission had failed to inform him of the reasons why it did not make it possible for him to be transferred to another institute, the Ombudsman notes that Article 7 ("Amendments") of the Contract provided that "[t]his contract, including the annexes thereto, may be modified only in writing by way of an amendment between the authorised representatives of the contracting authorities. No verbal agreement may be binding on the contracting authorities for this purpose. Any request for amendment must be received by the Commission at least two months before the expiry of the duration of the project". The Ombudsman considers that a request to be transferred to another host institute required a substantial modification of the Contract between the Commission and the host institute. The Ombudsman notes that no such request for amendment of the Contract appears to have been made to the Commission by the host institute.

2.10 On the basis of the above considerations, t he Ombudsman considers that there appears to have been no maladministration on the part of the Commission as regards its alleged failure to inform the complainant of the reasons why it neither (i) obliged the host institute to comply with its obligations as set out in the Contract nor (ii) made it possible for him to be transferred to another institute.

3 The alleged failure of the Commission to inform the complainant about the decision to stop paying him the amounts corresponding to his fellowship

3.1 The complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to inform him about the decision to stop paying him the amounts corresponding to his fellowship.

3.2 In its opinion, the Commission stated that, according to the contractual structure of the Individual Fellowship, the European Community’s contributions were paid to the host institute and not to the complainant. In the Commission’s view, it was, therefore, under no contractual obligation to inform the complainant about the termination of the Contract between it and the host institute. Furthermore, the termination of the Contract was the direct consequence of the termination of the Agreement signed between the host institute and the complainant.

3.3 The Ombudsman notes that, in the case that the Contract between the Commission and the contractor is terminated, Article 8(5) of the General Conditions of the Contract provides that "[t]he contractor shall take appropriate action to cancel or reduce commitments entered into, upon receipt of the letter from the Commission notifying them of the termination of the contract or upon dispatch of its letter requesting termination." It is thus the host institute that stops paying the fellow in case of contract termination. As already mentioned in point 2.7 above, no obligation of information by the Commission to the fellow is foreseen in this context.

3.4 On the basis of the above considerations, t he Ombudsman concludes that there appears to have been no maladministration on the part of the Commission as regards this allegation.

4 The alleged failure of the Commission to inform the complainant about the remaining amounts corresponding to his fellowship that he was not able to use for his research

4.1 The complainant alleged that that the Commission had failed to inform him about the remaining amounts corresponding to his fellowship that he was not able to use for his research.

4.2 In its opinion, the Commission stated that, once the Contract was terminated, the unused part of the Community’s financial contribution had to be returned by the contractor to the Commission itself. Pursuant to Article 11 of the Financial Regulation, the Commission was therefore no longer in a position to make use of this amount for the benefit of the complainant.

4.3 The Ombudsman notes that Article 8(5) of the General Conditions of the Contract provides that "[i]n the event of termination of the contract, the Commission may require repayment of a part of the Community’s financial contribution, taking into account the state of progress of the project. The amounts to be retained by the contractor and or the fellow shall be calculated in proportion to the period of performance of the project (…)".

4.4 On the basis of the above considerations, the Ombudsman considers that there appears to have been no maladministration on the part of the Commission as regards this allegation.

5 The complainant's claims

5.1 The complainant claimed that (i) he should be given the possibility to benefit from the remaining amounts corresponding to his fellowship. He further claimed that (ii) the Commission should overhaul the procedure regarding the Marie Curie fellowships and supervise the implementation of fellowships more thoroughly.

5.2 As regards the complainant's first claim, the Commission stated that it appeared that the complainant claimed the amounts corresponding to his fellowship for January and February 2003 and that he should address his employer, given that these payments were related to the Agreement signed between the complainant and the host institute.

As regards the complainant's second claim, the Commission stated that, throughout the entire duration of the Agreement, the Commission services remained regularly in contact with both parties and made all the (legally) possible efforts in order to find a suitable solution. In the Commission’s view, as it clearly emerged from the constant contacts between the Commission’s services, the host organisation and the complainant, adequate supervision on the implementation of the Agreement was provided within the limits defined by the structure of the different contractual relationships.

5.3 In his observations, the complainant argued that the aim of the Marie Curie Fellowship Programme, that is, to support young European researchers in their careers and to strengthen research in the EU, had not been achieved. In that context, the complainant suggested that the Ombudsman should comment on the effectiveness of the Commission’s procedure and to request a full overview of the Marie Curie Fellowship programme specifying more particularly the results which were achieved.

5.4 As regards the complainant's claim (i) that he should be given the possibility to benefit from the remaining amounts corresponding to his fellowship, the Ombudsman notes that, on the basis of the information contained in the host institute's letter to the Commission of 27 March 2003, it appears that the Agreement concluded between the complainant and the host institute was terminated, on 31 December 2002, by the host institute. Given that the issue of monthly payments to be paid to the complainant is governed by the Agreement concluded between himself and the host institute, the Ombudsman considers that the position of the Commission, pursuant to which the complainant should refer to his former employer, that is, the host institute, appears to be reasonable.

5.6 As regards the complainant's claim (ii) that the Commission should overhaul the procedure regarding the Marie Curie fellowships and supervise the implementation of fellowships more thoroughly, the Ombudsman considers that, in view of his conclusions on the complainant's three allegations above (see points 2.10, 3.4 and 4.4), there is no need further to pursue his inquiry into this claim.

5.7 On the basis of the above considerations, there appears to be no maladministration by the Commission with regard to the complainant's claims.

6 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by theCommission. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The President of the Commission will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS