A apresentar 1 - 20 de 325 resultados
Decision in case 1688/2015/JAP on the European Commission’s decision to recover funds from a participant in an EU project on older people and ICT (SENIOR)
Sexta-Feira | 06 outubro 2017
The complainant, a Belgian-based non-profit organisation, took part in an EU-funded project that aimed to address issues faced by older people in using ICT solutions. A financial audit found that the system used by the complainant for recording working time was unreliable. As a consequence, the Commission sought to recover more than EUR 85 000 from the complainant.
The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the auditors had recognised that the work done by the complainant on two specific ‘deliverables’ was legitimate, as was the working time involved. She thus considered that the Commission had not been justified in rejecting the personnel costs linked to this work. To address this, she made a recommendation to the Commission to reduce the amount it was seeking to recover accordingly.
The Commission fully accepted the Ombudsman’s recommendation and agreed to reduce the amount to be recovered by nearly EUR 37 000. Against that background, the Ombudsman closed the case. However, the Ombudsman continues with a separate inquiry regarding the recovery of funds in relation to the other “deliverables”.
Response from the European Commission to the Decision of the European Ombudsman following her inquiry OI/11/2015/EIS concerning the timeliness of payments
Segunda-Feira | 10 julho 2017
Décision dans l’affaire 593/2016/MDC, concernant la résiliation d’un contrat de services par la Commission européenne et son absence de réponse à une lettre
Sexta-Feira | 07 julho 2017
L’affaire concernait la résiliation d’un contrat de services par la Commission européenne. Le plaignant affirmait que la Commission n’aurait pas répondu à ses lettres, qu’elle aurait résilié le contrat de services sans motif valable et qu’elle aurait tardé à régler les factures qui lui avaient été adressées. Il demandait également à être indemnisé pour les retards de paiements et les dommages.
La Médiatrice a mené l’enquête sur ces allégations. Pour ce qui est de la première, elle a conclu que, puisque la Commission a fini par répondre aux lettres du plaignant, la question avait été réglée. En ce qui concerne la deuxième allégation, qui porte sur la présumée résiliation du contrat sans motif valable, la Médiatrice a conclu qu'il n’y avait pas eu de mauvaise administration de la part de la Commission, puisque le contrat donnait à celle-ci le droit de le résilier à tout moment et que, en tout état de cause, la Commission avait bien fourni un motif valable de résiliation. En ce qui concerne la troisième allégation, la Médiatrice a conclu qu’une solution avait été trouvée au problème des retards de paiement des factures, puisque la Commission a finalement versé au plaignant les sommes dues pour le travail effectué et qu’elle a accepté de verser des intérêts de retard. Enfin, en ce qui concerne la demande d’indemnisation, la Médiatrice a conclu qu'il n’y avait pas lieu de faire d’enquête supplémentaire sur la question, puisque la Commission a versé au plaignant une indemnité pour le préjudice subi et que le contrat ne prévoyait aucune indemnité pour aucun autre type de dommages.
Decision in case 1064/2015/JAP on the European Commission’s rejection and recovery of costs claimed under an FP6 grant agreement
Quinta-Feira | 22 junho 2017
The case concerned the Commission’s rejection and proposed recovery of certain costs related to subcontracted activities in the context of an FP6 grant agreement. Arising from the Ombudsman’s inquiry the Commission decided not to proceed with the recovery of costs totalling almost 87.000 EUR. The Commission explained that it had decided to change its original decision on the basis that the complainant had acted in good faith and in accordance with advice which the Commission had itself given.
The Ombudsman welcomed this new decision; nevertheless, she found it to have been unfortunate that for several years the complainant had the prospect of a major recovery of funds hanging over it.
Recommendation of the European Ombudsman in case 1688/2015/JAP concerning the European Commission’s rejection of personnel costs of a beneficiary in the SENIOR project after irregularities were uncovered by an audit
Sexta-Feira | 02 junho 2017
Decision in complaint 2048/2014/JAP against the European Commission’s handling of the audit of a research institute based in country Z
Segunda-Feira | 22 maio 2017
The complainant, a research institute based in country Z, took part in an EU-funded project under the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development.
An audit revealed irregularities with the project, leading the Commission to seek the recovery of more than 300,000 Euro from the complainant, despite clarifications for the irregularities it had provided. The complainant was not satisfied with the outcome and lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that some of the auditors' findings were flawed. Since the most crucial issue was to determine the actual start date of the project, the Ombudsman proposed as a solution that the Commission consult an expert to verify the auditors' finding in that regard or order a ‘technical audit’, as provided for in the ‘Grant Agreement’. The Commission accepted the solution, provided the costs of contracting the expert would be borne jointly by both parties. The Ombudsman asked the Commission and the complainant to agree between themselves on selecting the expert to be appointed and closed the case.
Decisão no caso OI/11/2015/EIS - Decisão do Provedor de Justiça Europeu que encerra o seu inquérito de iniciativa própria (OI/11/2015/EIS) sobre o cumprimento dos prazos de pagamento por parte da Comissão Europeia
Segunda-Feira | 19 dezembro 2016
Ao proceder ao seu inquérito, o Provedor de Justiça considerou tanto o dever da Comissão de assegurar uma boa gestão financeira, nomeadamente evitando pagamentos irregulares ou erróneos, como o direito fundamental dos contratantes e beneficiários a uma boa administração, nomeadamente através do tratamento dos seus pedidos de pagamento num prazo razoável.
O Provedor de Justiça solicitou informações sobre o número e a percentagem de casos em que ocorreram atrasos de pagamento, a extensão dos atrasos ocorridos, os montantes envolvidos e os casos em que foram pagos juros de mora. O Provedor de Justiça realizou também uma inspeção no local para obter uma melhor compreensão de como o processo de pagamento funciona, na prática.
O Provedor de Justiça observa que a percentagem global de atrasos de pagamento aumentou desde 2013, devido essencialmente a dois fatores. Em primeiro lugar, o atual Regulamento Financeiro, que entrou em vigor em 1 de janeiro de 2013, impôs prazos de pagamento mais rigorosos. Em segundo lugar, a autoridade orçamental da UE (isto é, o Parlamento e o Conselho) limitou o montante de «dotações de pagamento» em 2014, que é o montante destinado às instituições para pagar as contas durante o ano.
O Provedor de Justiça congratula-se com os progressos realizados pela Comissão na redução do número e do valor dos atrasos de pagamento em 2015, depois de terem atingido um pico em 2014. O Provedor de Justiça reconhece que a insuficiência de dotações de pagamento constituiu um fator excecional que escapa ao controlo da Comissão. O Provedor de Justiça salienta ainda que o aumento das médias de atraso de pagamento a partir de 2013 não significa que o desempenho da Comissão se tenha deteriorado em termos absolutos. Simultaneamente, o Provedor de Justiça sublinha que a Comissão tem de envidar esforços significativos para cumprir os prazos legais mais rigorosos introduzidos pelo atual Regulamento Financeiro.
A inspeção do Provedor de Justiça demonstrou que a Comissão acompanha de perto o seu desempenho nesta área e desenvolveu muitas boas práticas. No entanto, o Provedor de Justiça manifesta a sua preocupação pelo facto de algumas das medidas recentemente anunciadas pela Comissão já terem sido apresentadas em 2010, na sequência de uma consulta lançada pelo Provedor de Justiça no âmbito de um inquérito anterior.
Por conseguinte, o Provedor de Justiça incentiva a Comissão a intensificar os seus esforços nos domínios da coordenação entre os controlos financeiros e operacionais, do desenvolvimento de instrumentos em linha, da gestão da rotatividade do pessoal (na medida do possível), da gestão das suspensões e do registo atempado das faturas. O Provedor de Justiça sugere várias medidas, tendo este objetivo em mente.
Decision in case 748/2016/DK on the failure by the European External Action Service to answer correspondence
Segunda-Feira | 10 outubro 2016
Terça-Feira | 31 maio 2016
Decision of the European Ombudsman on complaint 1708/2014/JVH against the European Commission concerning a decision to reject the complainant's application to work on an EU-funded project
Quinta-Feira | 19 maio 2016
In July 2014, the Commission rejected the complainant's application to work as an expert on a project in Indonesia because she had already committed to work on an EU-funded project in Liberia taking place at the same time. The complainant re-applied when the project in Liberia was delayed due to the Ebola crisis, pointing out that she was in fact available to work on the project in Indonesia.
The Ombudsman found that the Commission is entitled to request experts to be available to work exclusively on projects for specified periods. She noted that the complainant had declared that she would be available to work, on an exclusive basis, on two overlapping projects. The complainant did not explain this contradiction when she made her initial application. On the basis of the information provided, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission was correct in rejecting the complainant’s first application. With regard to the second application, the complainant did, in fact, state that the on-going Ebola crisis in Liberia meant that she was in fact free to work on the project in Indonesia. The Commission then re-examined her situation. In the Ombudsman's view, it made a fair and reasonable judgement when it concluded that the complainant was unable to guarantee her availability. Thus, the Ombudsman concludes, the Commission also did not err when it rejected her second application to work on the Indonesian project. However, it does leave questions as to how the Commission deals with the rights of experts caught up in crises such as the Ebola-outbreak.
The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration. She suggested to the Commission that, where a project has to be suspended, it should be prepared to release any affected expert from an exclusivity commitment.
Decision Decision in case 797/2014/PL concerning the dismissal of a team leader in an EU-funded project in Central America by the EU Delegation to Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panamá
Quarta-Feira | 20 abril 2016
The case concerned the dismissal of a team leader in an EU-funded project in Central America.
The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the Commission had acted reasonably by allowing the beneficiary of the project to dismiss the team leader after the contract was signed. The Ombudsman, therefore, closed the case.
Quarta-Feira | 23 março 2016
The complainant had a grant contract with the European Commission for the financing of a project in Egypt. Under that contract, the complainant had to provide a financial guarantee from a bank or financial institution established in the EU in order to secure the Commission's pre-financing of the project. After the contract entered into force, it turned out that the complainant was not able to provide the required financial guarantee. For that reason, the Commission terminated the contract.
The Ombudsman found that the Commission had complied with its contractual obligation to consult the complainant before proceeding to the contract termination. In light of the information that the complainant provided to the Commission on its financial capabilities, the Ombudsman also found that the Commission could reasonably understand that the complainant would not have been able to implement the project without any pre-financing and that, therefore, any further consultations were unnecessary.
The Ombudsman concluded that the Commission had acted lawfully and reasonably in terminating the contract with the complainant. However, the Ombudsman suggested that in future contracts the Commission consider including, in the standard contracts terms, a provision entitling the grant beneficiary to renounce the Commission's pre-financing. This would remove the obligation to provide a financial guarantee, should the beneficiary be in a position to prove that it has the financial means necessary to carry out the project. The Ombudsman also asked the Commission to make sure to always state, in a termination letter, the exact legal basis for that decision as well as the options for appealing the decision.
Decision of the European Ombudsman in case 697/2014/MG concerning the alleged duty of the European Commission to recover funds from an EU project partner
Quarta-Feira | 17 fevereiro 2016
The case concerned the Commission's decision not to accept certain costs declared by a partner to a project funded by the EU. The Commission's decision meant that its final payment to the consortium was reduced by the sum that this partner had received by way of pre-financing. The coordinator argued that it was the Commission's duty to recover the funds incorrectly paid to the partner in question.
The Ombudsman found that the Commission had handled the issue correctly as it could have initiated a recovery only had there been a debt towards the Union. The distribution of financing among project partners is a question of a different nature, in which the Commission has no obligation to intervene. The Ombudsman therefore found no maladministration by the Commission.
Decision in case 1134/2015/TN on the European Commission's decision to declare ineligible certain costs incurred by a partner to an EU funded project
Quinta-Feira | 11 fevereiro 2016
The case concerned the Commission's decision to declare ineligible certain costs declared by a partner to an EU funded project. The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found that the Commission's grounds for not accepting the costs in question were reasonable. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.
Sexta-Feira | 05 fevereiro 2016
Decision in case 721/2015/OV on the European Commission's refusal to consider dividend payments as eligible personnel costs of a project
Sexta-Feira | 18 dezembro 2015
The complainant is an SME which participated as a beneficiary in a Commission project. It remunerates its staff partly through dividend payments. When the Commission in 2014 rejected part of the complainant's personnel costs as ineligible, the complainant argued that the Commission had previously approved its remuneration model and that, therefore, it had a legitimate expectation that its personnel costs would be reimbursed accordingly. The complainant turned to the Ombudsman.
After an inspection of the Commission's file, the Ombudsman found that the Commission had not explicitly approved the complainant's remuneration model and that the conditions for legitimate expectations to exist were not fulfilled. The Ombudsman furthermore found that the Commission's position was legally correct and in accordance with the Grant Agreement. However, the Ombudsman also found that the Commission could have been more diligent and have alerted the complainant, when joining the project, that its remuneration model would not be acceptable. In a further letter to the complainant, the Commission expressed its regret to the complainant for how events had developed, but also expressed the hope that the complainant would continue its participation in the project. The Ombudsman found that there was no maladministration by the Commission in its handling of this case though it was unfortunate that the complainant understood that its remuneration model would be accepted by the Commission.
Decision in case 2432/2013/NF on the European Commission's issuing of debit notes under supply contracts entered into by the ACP Secretariat
Sexta-Feira | 06 novembro 2015
The complainant concluded a number of supply contracts with the Secretariat of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States ('ACP Secretariat') which implemented an EU-funded programme. The complainant did not meet a number of delivery deadlines and the ACP Secretariat therefore imposed penalties on the complainant. The complainant turned to the Ombudsman about the European Commission issuing debit notes for the penalties. The Ombudsman found that, when issuing the debit notes, the Commission was acting on behalf of the ACP Secretariat and the Commission did not have any discretion in this regard. The complainant had to settle any contractual dispute directly with the ACP Secretariat, which is not an EU institution, body, office or agency. The Ombudsman found no maladministration but encouraged the Commission to explain in future the role it plays in this context to avoid similar issues arising.
Decision of the European Ombudsman closing the inquiry into complaint 121/2015/NF against the European Commission concerning its refusal to give effect to a binding Dispute Adjudication Board decision related to a contract for measures encouraging economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community
Terça-Feira | 27 outubro 2015
Quarta-Feira | 30 setembro 2015
Decision of the European Ombudsman closing the inquiry into complaint 1731/2012/PL against the European Commission
Quarta-Feira | 02 setembro 2015
The case concerned the Commission's decision to recover from a non-profit organisation the EU funds that it had invested in its social reserve between 2005 and 2009, considering them ineligible costs. As the reserve had been initially created with the Commission’s support and cooperation, the organisation complained to the European Ombudsman. Having inquired into the complaint, the Ombudsman made a proposal for a solution to the Commission inviting it to reconsider its recovery decision. In reply, the Commission put forward a number of measures it had taken in order to secure the organisation’s future. The Ombudsman considered these measures satisfactory and therefore decided to close the case.