Strasbourg, 2 May 2007

Dear Ms F.,

On 5 September 2005, you submitted to the European Ombudsman a complaint on behalf of yourself and other "auxiliary conference interpreters" ("ACIs") against the European Commission concerning alleged late payment to the "ACIs".

On 6 October 2005, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission. On 10 January 2006, the Commission sent its opinion in English and, on 19 January 2006, the French translation of it.

On 24 January 2006, I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations which you sent on 21 February 2006.

I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made. I apologise for the length of time it has taken me to complete my investigation of your complaint.

THE COMPLAINT

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

Background (complaint 2201/2005/MF)

On 16 June 2005, the complainant, a conference interpreter ("ACI") working for the European Parliament under auxiliary status, submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman, on behalf of herself and other auxiliary conference interpreters ("ACIs"), against the European Commission.

In her complaint, the complainant alleged that, from the third quarter of 2004 onwards, the Commission, which was the institution responsible for the payment of all the ACIs' fees, had failed to pay them for the interpretation services provided. The complainant stated that, in mid-January 2005, the ACIs had contacted the Commission in order to be given explanations for the situation. At the end of January 2005, the Commission gave several reasons for its failure to pay the ACIs on time. One such reason given was that the ACIs involved had to provide their banking details. In the complainant's view, the reasons given by the Commission were not relevant.

The complainant stated that the Commission resumed paying the fees from April 2005 onwards, but, according to her, payments were effected in a very confusing way which made it difficult for the ACIs to keep track of exactly which month's fees had been paid.

The Ombudsman's reaction

On 13 July 2005, on the occasion of a telephone conversation, the Ombudsman's services asked the complainant to send the supporting documents demonstrating that she had made the appropriate prior administrative approaches to the Commission. Given that the complainant did not send the supporting documents, the Ombudsman considered that there were insufficient grounds for opening an inquiry and closed the case on the basis of Article 195 of the EC Treaty by decision of 19 July 2005.

Present complaint (3067/2005/(MHZ)MF)

On 5 September 2005, the complainant submitted the requested supporting documents concerning her complaint against the Commission. Complaint 2201/2005/MF, together with the supporting documents, was thus re-registered as a new complaint under the new reference 3067/2005/(MHZ)MF.

From the supporting documents submitted by the complainant, it appeared that the latest relevant facts of the case were, in summary, as follows:

On 17 February 2005, the complainant wrote to Directorate Budget and Finance of the Commission's Directorate-General for Interpretation ("DG SCIC"), asking for her fees to be paid. The complainant alleged that none of the reasons invoked by the Commission for its late payment to the ACIs could justify the situation.

In view of the Commission's lack of reply to her letter of 17 February 2005, the complainant, on 7 March 2005, wrote a further e-mail to the official in charge of her file at the Payment Office of DG SCIC. In this communication, she pointed out the following:

"[Je voudrais aussi vous informer, bien que ce ne soit pas de votre responsabilité, que si je dois en venir à demander un emprunt bancaire pour faire face à mes factures (…) je rendrai la Commission responsable du paiement des intérêts y afférents.

Cela en sus, évidemment, des intérêts que la Commission va devoir nous rembourser pour les comptes négatifs (voir Règlement financier : Chapitre 6-Section 5- article 83) … et sans oublier les intérêts générés par les millions d’euros non payés aux centaines d’AIC que la Commission perçoit indûment depuis quelques mois et qui vont devoir nous être redistribués !]".

In her reply of 9 March 2005, the official at the Payment Office of DG SCIC informed the complainant that, since 1 January 2005, the payments had been erroneously sent to the complainant's former bank account, which had been registered on DG SCIC database since 1998. The official further informed the complainant that three payments had been transferred to the complainant's new bank account as from 2 March 2005.

On the basis of the initial complaint 2201/2005/MF and of the further documents submitted by the complainant, the Ombudsman concluded that the complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to pay on time the fees owed to the ACIs for their provision of interpretation services, and had also failed to justify its late payment.

The Ombudsman also concluded that the complainant claimed that the Commission should pay to the ACIs interest on account of late payment, as well as reimburse them for the bank charges resulting from the debit balances in their bank accounts which materialised as a result of late payments by the Commission.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

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

As regards the factual background at the origin of the complaint

In 2003, the Secretaries-General of the Commission, the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice issued instructions to the interpreting services of the three institutions asking them to maximise the efficient use of staff and financial resources. In order to achieve this, services had to improve co-operation in a range of areas, particularly as regards the management of freelance interpreters.

Several major projects were launched during 2004, including the merger of the lists of the ACIs working for the institutions; the setting up of inter-institutional test procedures; and the project most relevant to this complaint, that is, the merger of payment offices. Before this merger of payment offices, the ACIs working for the Commission were paid by payment managers in the financial unit in DG SCIC. The ACIs who worked for the Court of Justice and Parliament were paid by the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements ("PMO"). In order to avoid any irregularity in the payment of about 3000 interpreters, who appeared on one of two separate lists, these lists were merged. Towards the end of 2004, all payment activities were moved to DG SCIC. In order to deal with all issues concerning inter-institutional management of the ACIs unit SCIC-B4 was set up.

At the same time, the Commission's Directorate-General for Budget ("DG Budget") launched a new accounting system (ABAC) to ensure security of payments, for example, by verifying that the right bank accounts were used. This exercise required further work and adaptation. As a consequence of all these upheavals, there were some delays in payments. These were especially noticeable during January 2005 but continued through the first half of the year. The Commission stated, however, that this was only a temporary problem.

Finally, pursuant to the new Financial Regulation, any third party was required to possess legal personality and to complete a form providing his/her personal details to be sent to DG Budget. While this change entered into force in 2003, the SCIC, bearing in mind that a considerable number of those affected by this measure were based outside Belgium and that it was not always easy to obtain the necessary legal documents, gave the ACIs a full year to submit the required details of their legal entities.

The Commission pointed out that it was true that contracts issued by Parliament for itself, the Court of Auditors and the Commission in Luxembourg were still not always transmitted in time for the payment team to make the payment within 28 days, as stipulated in the Agreement on Working Conditions. This problem was in part due to the fact that the Information Technologies interface has not yet reached the final stages of development, in particular regarding the automatic transfer of data from Parliament to DG SCIC. The Commission stated that Parliament was aware of the problem and was working on finding a solution before the end of 2005. In the Commission’s view, in the course of the second half of the year 2005, delays were both shorter and less frequent than in the first half of the year.

As regards the complainant’s allegations and claims

The Commission recognised that, due to the setting up of the ABAC new accounting system and the merger of the payment offices described above, there had certainly been delays in payments of the fees due to the ACIs for their provision of interpretation services. The Commission stated that this was regrettable.

The Commission went on to point out, however, that the resulting inconveniences had been explained to the ACIs (i) collectively, by e-mail, through messages on the website, as well as in meetings with the representatives of the ACIs, that is, the Delegation of the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC), and (ii) individually, by their payment officer.

In the beginning of May 2004, the ACIs were also informed, on numerous occasions, by e-mails and letters, that payments could not be made before a valid legal entity form had been duly completed. By e-mail of 21 February 2005 and again on 12 May 2005 by information published on the ACIs pages of SCICnet, all ACIs had been informed of the problems relating to late payments.

As regards the complainant’s situation, her legal entity file had been set up, on 14 July 2004, in DG Budget. However, she did not send her duly completed legal entity form until 10 January 2005. DG Budget validated the complainant’s legal entity form on 18 January 2005. In the Commission’s view, the complainant's delay in completing the legal entity form explained the Commission's delay in making the necessary payments to her.

In January 2005, following the merger of the payments offices of DG SCIC and PMO, it turned out that some data in the new payments system concerning some ACIs were incorrect . This resulted in payments being transferred to outdated bank accounts. This problem also occurred in the complainant’s case. In fact, seven transfers concerning payments or partial payments and final settlements for the month of January 2005 were made to a bank account of the complainant which was out of date. These transfers were returned to the Commission and subsequently transferred to the correct bank account of the complainant. The latter was informed accordingly by e-mail of 9 March 2005. The Commission pointed out that, contrary to the complainant’s statement, the payments had not been deliberately blocked. In order quickly to process late payments, the payment team made numerous individual payments (including corrections) rather than grouping them together. This way of proceeding may have confused the complainant.

As regards the complainant’s claim that the ACIs should be paid interest on account of late payment, the Commission stated that, in case there was a delay in payment, the Agreement on Working Conditions, which was accessible via SCICNet and on the AIIC website, and the Financial Regulation provided a remedy in terms of payment of interest. The Commission stated that the joint payment office in DG SCIC took responsibility for any late payment and would pay interest, in accordance with the Financial Regulation. Default interest was covered by the measures in the Financial Regulation and the relevant implementing measures were mentioned in the Agreement on Working Conditions. If the complainant had wished to have interest paid on any payment that she deemed to have been late, DG SCIC would, naturally, have paid this interest. The demand to claim interest, however, had to be made within two months of receiving a late payment. All ACIs who had made such a claim had received payment of the interest due. T he complainant did not request any payment of interest within the two-month time-limit.

As regards the complainant’s claim that the ACIs should be reimbursed the bank charges resulting from late payments, the Commission stated that, given that no interest had been received by DG SCIC because of the delay in the payments, there was no basis for paying compensation to the ACIs to cover any bank charges.

The complainant's observations

In her reply, the complainant welcomed the fact that the Commission recognised the inconveniences caused by these late payments.

The complainant also stated that, as regards her own situation, she only received one e-mail in which the person in charge of her file apologised for late payment of her fees and undertook to solve the matter.

The complainant argued that she had not been aware of any rule of the Financial Regulation pursuant to which any demand to claim interest had to be made within two months of receiving a late payment.

THE DECISION

1 Preliminary remark: the scope of the Ombudsman’s inquiry

1.1 The complainant is an ACI working for the European Parliament. In mid-January 2005, following delays in the payment for the interpretation services provided, several ACIs contacted the Commission, the institution in charge of paying their fees, in order to be given explanations on the situation. The Commission gave several reasons for its failure to pay the ACIs on time, including the fact that, in order for payment to be effected, they had to provide their banking details. In the complainant's view, the reasons given by the Commission were not relevant. From April 2005 onwards, the Commission resumed payment of the fees, but, according to the complainant, in a very confusing way which made it difficult for the interpreters to keep track of exactly which month's fees had been paid. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to pay on time the fees owed to the ACIs for their provision of interpretation services, and had also failed to justify its late payment. She claimed that the Commission should pay to the ACIs interest on account of late payment, as well as reimburse them for the bank charges resulting from the debit balances in their bank accounts which materialised as a result of late payments by the Commission.

1.2 The Ombudsman notes that the complaint was lodged by the complainant on behalf of herself and "other auxiliary conference interpreters". The Ombudsman however notes that the complainant did not submit (i) any detailed information on the identity of these ACIs or (ii) information on the details of their individual situation with regard to the alleged delays in payment and their claims for interest on account of late payment. As regards the latter claim that the Commission should pay interest to the ACIs, the Ombudsman notes that, in its opinion, the Commission stated that all ACIs who had made such a claim within two months of receiving a late payment had obtained payment of the interest due. The complainant did not contest this in her observations.

1.3 In these circumstances, and particularly in the absence of concrete information as regards the allegations and claims of the other ACIs, the Ombudsman considers that there appear to be no grounds further to pursue his inquiry into the aspects of the complaint in so far as they relate to the other ACIs. The Ombudsman therefore considers it appropriate to focus on the complainant’s individual situation. If reference is made below to the ACIs, this is done merely in order to be consistent with the presentation of the facts as given by the complainant and the Commission.

2 The alleged failure of the Commission to pay on time the complainant's fees and to justify its late payment

2.1 The complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to pay on time the fees owed to the ACIs for their provision of interpretation services, and had also failed to justify its late payment. As mentioned above (point 1.3), only the complainant's individual situation will be considered here.

2.2 In its opinion, the Commission stated that, as regards its alleged failure to pay the ACIs' fees on time, there had certainly been delays in payments which were due to the merger of the payment offices and the setting up of ABAC, the new accounting system of the Commission. The Commission expressed its regrets for these delays. It pointed out, however, that the related inconveniences had been explained to the ACIs, who were also informed, on numerous occasions, by e-mails and letters, that payments could not be made before a valid legal entity form had been duly completed. As regards its alleged failure to justify its late payment, the Commission stated that, on 14 July 2004, the complainant’s legal entity file had been set up by DG Budget. However, she did not send her duly completed legal entity form until 10 January 2005. DG Budget validated the complainant’s legal entity on 18 January 2005. In the Commission’s view, this explained the delay in making the payments to the complainant. The Commission further stated that , in January 2005, following the merger of the payments offices of DG SCIC and PMO, some data in the new payment system concerning some ACIs had proven to be incorrect . This error resulted in payments being transferred to outdated bank accounts. This problem occurred in the complainant’s case as well. In fact, seven transfers concerning payments or partial payments and final settlements for the month of January 2005 were made to a bank account of the complainant which was out of date. These transfers were returned to the Commission and subsequently transferred to the complainant's correct bank account. On 9 March 2005, the Commission informed the complainant accordingly by e-mail. All ACIs were informed of the problems relating to late payments by e-mail of 21 February 2005 and again, on 12 May 2005, through the ACIs pages of SCICnet. The payments had not been deliberately blocked. In order quickly to process late payments, the payment team made numerous individual payments (including corrections) rather than grouping them together. This way of proceeding may have confused the complainant.

2.3 In her observations, the complainant welcomed the fact that the Commission recognised the inconveniences caused by the late payments. She went to state that, as regards her own situation, she only received one e-mail in which the person in charge of her file apologised for late payment of her fees and undertook to solve the matter.

2.4 The Ombudsman notes that the complainant's allegation is in fact twofold, namely (i) the alleged failure to pay on time, and (ii) the alleged failure to justify the resulting delay.

2.5 It is good administrative practice for the administration to make payments within the deadlines foreseen by the legal provisions in force.

2.6 As regards the Commission’s alleged failure to pay the ACIs' fees on time, the Ombudsman takes note of the Agreement on Working Conditions and Financial Terms for Session Auxiliary Conference Interpreters (SAI) and Freelance Interpreters (FLI) (Auxiliary Conference Interpreters recruited by the Institutions of the European Union(1) (the "Agreement on Working Conditions"). Article 18 (Terms of Payment) of the Agreement on Working Conditions provides that "[p]ayments shall be made within four weeks from the Saturday of the week in which the last day was worked as regards fees, allowances and expenses, after deduction of the contribution payable to the provident scheme to which the ACI is affiliated, the ACI's share in the sickness and accident insurance premium and any share of the allowances and expenses paid by another institution or a third party" (emphasis added).

2.7 The Ombudsman notes that, during at least the first part of the year 2005(2), the complainant and the other ACIs were not been paid within the four-week deadline foreseen by Article 18 of the Agreement on Working Conditions. The Ombudsman further notes that, in its opinion, the Commission recognised and regretted that the payments had not been made within the four-week time-limit.

2.8 As regards the Commission’s alleged failure to justify its late payment to ACIs, the Ombudsman notes that, in its opinion, the Commission invoked in total five reasons for the delays in the payments. Three reasons for late payments concerned all the ACIs, namely, (i) the merger of the payment offices; (ii) the setting up of the new accounting system, ABAC; and (iii) the time given to the ACIs to fill in the legal entity forms pursuant to the new Financial Regulation. Two further reasons concerned the complainant’s individual situation, namely, (iv) the fact that she did not submit her legal entity form in due time and (v) the fact that the payments had been erroneously sent to her former bank account, which had been registered on the database of the Commission's DG SCIC since 1998.

2.9 As regards the three first reasons concerning delays in the payments to all ACIs, the Ombudsman is of the view that they are linked to the internal organisation of the Commission’s services and that the latter could have anticipated the changes that were implicitly required by these changes. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman is not convinced that these reasons could justify the late payments made to the ACIs.

2.10 As regards the fourth reason concerning the complainant’s individual situation, the Ombudsman refers to the Commission’s opinion. It is clear from that opinion that, despite the fact the complainant’s legal entity file had been set up by DG Budget on 14 July 2004, the complainant did not send her duly completed legal entity form until 10 January 2005. The Ombudsman notes that, in her observations, the complainant did not challenge this information. However, it has to be pointed out that there appears to be no concrete information in the Commission’s opinion on the exact date on which this form had to be provided by the complainant to the Commission. Furthermore, the Ombudsman notes that it appears from the complainant’s enclosures that the absence of this information did not prevent the Commission from paying the complainant for her fees. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman is of the view that the fact that the complainant submitted her form on 10 January 2005 cannot justify the delay in the payment of her fees.

2.11 As regards the fifth reason, the Ombudsman takes note of the complaint’s enclosures. Following the complainant’s e-mail of 7 March 2005, in which she pointed out that the Commission should reimburse the ACIs for interest charged on account of late payments and for the bank charges that materialised as a result of the fact that late payment had resulted in bank accounts being overdrawn, the person in charge of her file at the Payment Office at DG SCIC replied by e-mail to the complainant. It emerges from this e-mail that the official interpreted the complainant’s e-mail of 7 March 2005 as the expression of her intention to apply, at a future stage, for a compensation of interest on account of late payment(3). The official further informed the complainant that, in the meantime, three payments had been transferred to her new bank account as from 2 March 2005. In this e-mail, the complainant was further informed that, since 1 January 2005, the payments had been erroneously sent to her former bank account, which had been registered on DG SCIC database since 1998. The official further expressed her sincere apologies for the mistake that had been made regarding the complainant's bank account.

2.12 The Ombudsman appreciates the fact that an apology was made concerning the mistake relating to the complainant's bank account. He notes, however, that no such apology was offered by the Commission as regards the delays in payment in general. In its opinion, the Commission stated that these delays were regrettable. However, instead of offering an apology, the Commission submitted several arguments in order to try and explain these delays. As mentioned above, the Ombudsman considers that the reasons invoked by the Commission are inadequate to justify its late payment of the fees to the ACIs. It may be useful to add that the fact that the ACIs concerned had been informed that there were problems cannot, in the absence of a clear apology, alter this conclusion.

2.13 On the basis of the above considerations, the Ombudsman concludes that the Commission’s failure to pay the complainant on time for her fees is an instance of maladministration. A critical remark will be made in this regard.

3 The complainant's claims

3.1 The complainant claimed that the Commission should (i) pay to the ACIs interest on account of late payment, as well as (ii) reimburse them for the bank charges resulting from the debit balances in their bank accounts which materialised as a result of late payments by the Commission. As mentioned above (point 1.3), only the complainant's individual situation will be considered here.

3.2 In its opinion, the Commission stated that the joint payment office in DG SCIC took responsibility for any late payment and would pay interest, in accordance with the Financial Regulation. If the complainant had wished to have interest paid on any payment that she deemed to have been late, DG SCIC would, naturally, have paid this interest. However, at the date of the complaint, the complainant had not requested any payment of interest. The demand to claim interest however had to be made within two months of receiving a late payment. The Commission pointed out that default interest was covered by the measures in the Financial Regulation and that the relevant implementing measures were mentioned in the Agreement on Working Conditions, which is accessible via SCICnet and on the AIIC website. The Commission further stated that, given that DG SCIC did not receive interest on the late payment of contracts of ACIs, there was no basis for paying compensation to the ACIs to cover any bank charges.

3.3 In her observations, the complainant argued that she had not been aware of any rule of the Financial Regulation pursuant to which the demand to claim interest had to be made within two months of receiving a late payment.

3.4 The Ombudsman notes that it emerges from the Commission’s opinion that the Commission was in principle ready to pay interest to the complainant. The Commission however pointed out that the conditions for obtaining interest were not fulfilled in the complainant's case, as she had not made her request for interest within the two-month deadline foreseen in the Financial Regulation.

3.5 The Ombudsman notes that the working conditions and the financial terms of the ACIs are regulated by the Agreement on Working Conditions, which is accessible on the AIIC website. Article 18 (Terms of Payment) of the Rules for implementing certain provisions of the Agreement on Working Conditions(4), provides that "[d]efault interest is covered by the measures in the Financial Regulation and its implementing measures". The Ombudsman notes that, pursuant to Article 106(5)(5) of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the Financial Regulation(6) (the "Financial Regulation") , the creditor, that is, in the present case, the complainant, had the possibility to submit a claim for interest on account of late payment within a two-month deadline from receiving the delayed payment. The Ombudsman notes that it appears to emerge from the wording of this provision that, in order to be granted, the request for interest has to be made within the two-month deadline.

3.6 In the present case, the Ombudsman notes that, it emerges from the wording of the complainant’s e-mail of 7 March 2005 to DG SCIC that she expressed her intention to claim for interest on account of late payment. It however appears that the complainant did not follow up her intention to make such a claim for interest. In her observations, the complainant did not dispute the Commission's argument that she had not made any claim for interest within the period of two months foreseen by the relevant rules.

3.7 The Ombudsman notes, however, that the complainant argued, in her observations, that she had not been aware of any rule of the Financial Regulation pursuant to which a claim for interest had to be made within two months of receiving a late payment. In the Ombudsman's view, the Commission's decision to refuse to pay interest would indeed be questionable if the complainant had not been sufficiently aware of the relevant rules. The Ombudsman notes, however, that, in her e-mail of 7 March 2005, the complainant referred to Article 83 of the Financial Regulation in order to sustain her view that the Commission would have to pay interest on account of late payment to the ACIs. It is true that the two-month period for bringing a claim for interest is not mentioned in this provision but in Article 106(5) of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 mentioned above. Even though this provision was not mentioned in the e-mail of 7 March 2005, the very specific reference to Article 83 of the Financial Regulation would appear to indicate that the complainant was sufficiently familiar with the rules to be applied in this area. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that the complainant has not established her claim that the Commission should pay interest on account of the delays in payment that have occurred.

3.8 As regards the complainant’s claim to be reimbursed the bank charges paid by her for the debit balance of her bank account, the Ombudsman understands that the complainant wishes to obtain compensation for damage that was allegedly caused by the delay in payments from the Commission. However, it would appear that envisaging the payment of interest in the cases of delayed payments implies compensating the creditor for the detrimental effects of such delays. Given that the complainant did not establish her claim for such interest in the present case (see point 3.6 above), any claim for damages going beyond the detrimental effects inherent in delays in payments would have to be supported by sufficient evidence. The Ombudsman considers, however, that the complainant has not put forward sufficient evidence to support her claim that the Commission should reimburse certain bank charges she might have incurred.

3.9 In light of the above, the Ombudsman considers that there appear to be no grounds to further inquiries into the complainant’s claims.

4 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, it is necessary to make the following critical remark:

It is good administrative practice for the administration to make payments within the deadlines foreseen by the legal provisions in force. The Ombudsman notes that, pursuant to Article 18 of the Agreement on Working Conditions, payments to the ACIs for their fees shall be made within four weeks from the Saturday of the week in which the last day was worked. The Ombudsman notes the Commission recognised and regretted that the payments for the ACIs’ fees had not been made within the four-week time-limit.

The Ombudsman considers that the three first reasons invoked by the Commission to justify its late payment are linked to the internal organisation of the Commission’s services and that the latter could have anticipated the changes that were implicitly required by these changes. As regards the fourth reason, the Ombudsman is of the view that the fact that the complainant submitted her form on 10 January 2005 cannot justify the delay in the payment of her fees. As regards the fifth reason, the Ombudsman considers that the delay in the payments to the complainant appears to be due to a mistake made by the Commission on the occasion of the registration of the complainant’s bank account in the new payments system.

The Ombudsman therefore concludes that the reasons invoked by the Commission are inadequate to explain its late payment of the fees of the ACIs. The Ombudsman therefore concludes the Commission’s failure to pay the complainant on time for her fees constitutes an instance of maladministration.

Given that the main aspect of the case was the complainant’s claim to be paid interest on account of late payment and to be reimbursed for the bank charges resulting from the debit balances in her bank account and that these claims cannot be sustained on the basis of the evidence submitted to the Ombudsman (see point 3 above), it is not appropriate to pursue a friendly settlement of the matter. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

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

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) The Agreement on Working Conditions was concluded on 28 July 1999 between Parliament, the Commission and the Court of Justice on the one hand, and the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) on the other hand. The text of the agreement is available on the AIIC's website (http://www.aiic.net/ViewPage.cfm?article_id=999&plg=1&slg=1).

(2) The Ombudsman notes that, in her complaint, the complainant stated that late payments began in the third quarter of 2004.

(3) The official’s reply reads in part: "I am sending a copy of this e-mail and your message to Mr C. and Mr E. in order to make them aware of your intention to apply for a compensation of interest for late payments (…)."

(4) The Rules for Implementing Certain Provisions are available on AIIC's website (http://www.aiic.net/ViewPage.cfm?article_id=999&plg=1&slg=1).

(5) Article 106 of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December: "On expiry of the time limits laid down in paragraphs 1 and 2, the creditor may, within two months of receiving late payment, demand interest (…)". (emphasis added)

(6) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).