Dear Mr B.,
On 24 September 1999, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning a project which you submitted to DG 1-B of the Commission in the framework of the MED-Media programme.
On 18 October 1999, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 7 January 2000. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 17 February 2000.
I am writing now to let you know the result of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

In 1995, the complainant submitted a project proposal in the framework of the MED MEDIA programme for 1996 and 1997. On 10 January 1996, the Commission's Directorate General IB wrote to the complainant that:

"Your network has submitted a decentralised cooperation project within the framework of the MED MEDIA programme for 1996 and 1997.

I am pleased to inform you that your project has been selected to receive European Commission financing.

The implementation of this project will take place during 1996 after we have completed a review of the form of management used for the decentralised cooperation programmes. [The letter outlined aspects of that review.]

My colleagues will be in touch with your network to keep you informed of the establishment of the new management system and of details of the Community financial contribution which has at this stage been fixed at 108.400 ecus for 1996. Cofinancing by the Community will only cover actions initiated after the signature of a contract with the Commission. The MED MEDIA programme will, I am sure, be strengthened as a result and will enjoy the full support of your network.

I wish you every success with your project."

On 20 September 1996, the Commission informed the complainant anew of its preparation and implementation of the new programme framework. The Commission's letter reminded the complainant that "in the meantime no expenditure on your projects can be reimbursed by the Commission and that there can be no retrospective financing."
The complainant has stated the he repeatedly contacted the Commission during 1997 and the early months of 1998, and that he was reassured by Commission officials that the Med programmes would soon be re-launched.
On 17 September 1998, the Commission sent the complainant a letter which informed him that the type of project proposed by his organisation would be excluded from the MED-programme, due to a programme-limitation requested in a resolution of the European Parliament.
The complainant subsequently contacted the Commission, protesting against the Commission's decision to exclude the type of project proposed by his firm. The Commission responded that it had no obligation towards the complainant, given that no contractual relationship had been established between itself and the complainant. It furthermore expressed its view that the resolution of the European Parliament(1) (referred to in the letter of 17 September 1998 above) should be respected.
In his complaint, the complainant claimed that:
(i) In 1996, his project was selected for funding by the Commission and that this decision was never officially annulled and that therefore the Commission is still committed to funding the project;
(ii) In relying on repeated assurances by DG 1B officials that the project would be funded, he incurred considerable costs in maintaining the network required for the project and also sacrificed other income-earning opportunities by avoiding long-term projects.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion
In its opinion, the Commission explained that following a report by the Court of Auditors in October 1995, it decided to suspend all MED programmes immediately and cancel all existing contracts. The Court had in its report alerted the Commission to apparent management irregularities in the MED programmes.
Those management irregularities were subsequently examined by the European Parliament, that issued a resolution on the matter. In its resolution, the Parliament included a statement to the effect that the kind of project proposed by the complainant's firm should not be included in the revised MED programme. The Commission accepted this policy decision.
The Commission furthermore emphasised in its opinion that there never was a contractual relationship between the Commission and the complainant's firm.
The complainant's observations
In his observations, the complainant has recognised that the Commission did not formally enter into a contract with his firm. However, he maintained and further argued that the Commission created a legitimate expectation that a contract would be concluded.
The complainant furthermore questioned the Commission's apparent attempt to excuse its actions through references to internal management problems. He considered that the Commission's response to the report and resolution by respectively the Court of Auditors and the European Parliament was arbitrary.
Finally, the complainant specified his claim for compensation, suggesting that the Commission pay his firm the expenses which were foreseen in the project originally proposed.

THE DECISION

1 The allegation that the Commission is still committed to funding the project
1.1 The complainant has first claimed that in 1996 his project was selected for funding by the Commission and that this decision was never officially annulled and that therefore the Commission is still committed to funding the project.
1.2 It appears undisputed in this case that no contract was formally concluded between the Commission and the complainant. The claim that the Commission is still committed to funding the complainant's project would therefore not appear well-founded. The Ombudsman therefore concludes that there is no maladministration in respect of the first allegation.
2 The claim for compensation
2.1 The complainant's second claim is that by relying on repeated assurances by DG 1B officials that the project would be funded, he incurred considerable costs in maintaining the network required for the project and also sacrificed other income-earning opportunities by avoiding long-term projects.
2.2 The Ombudsman observes that the letters of 10 January and 20 September 1996 drew attention to the fact that no funding would be forthcoming before a contract had been concluded. The letter of 10 January stated that co-financing by the Community would only cover actions initiated after the signature of a contract with the Commission. The letter of 20 September stated that in the period before the new programme framework had been put in place, no expenditure on projects could be reimbursed by the Commission and that there could be no retrospective financing.
2.3 Against this background, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission took reasonable steps to inform the complainant that funding could only be made after a formal contract had been concluded. There has accordingly been no maladministration in regard to the second allegation.
3 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) Resolution on Court of Auditors' Special Report No 1/96 on the MED programmes (submitted pursuant to Article 188c(4) second subparagraph of the EC Treaty), together with the Commission's replies (C4-0512/96). 1997 OJ C 286/263.