FOR PREVIEWING & TESTING PURPOSES ONLY.
This notification will disappear once the page will be published.
This link is available for less than 30 minutes.
  • Ușor de citit
  • Dimensiune text

Aveți o plângere împotriva unei instituții sau unui organism al UE?

Limba actuală: 
  • English
limbi disponibile: 
Traducerea acestei pagini va fi disponibilă în câteva minute. Veți fi înștiințat de îndată ce este gata. Vă atragem atenția că, deoarece instrumentul eTranslation este foarte solicitat, această operațiune poate dura mai mult decât de obicei

Decision of the European Ombudsman on complaint 1113/2001/PB against the European Commission


Strasbourg, 21 January 2002

Dear Ms E.,

On July 26 2001, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission, concerning delay in making a payment under contract N° 1999 - 1752 / 001 - 001 CEN-CENTRE.

On 22 August 2001, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 15 November 2001, and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. No observations appear to have been received from you.

I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

In July 2001, the complainant made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission, concerning delay in making a payment under contract N° 1999 - 1752 / 001 - 001 CEN-CENTRE.

The complainant's contract with the Commission was signed in 1999. The complainant submitted its final financial report on 30 November 2000, to DG XXII (Education and Culture), but had not received the full amount due under the contract.

The complainant had contacted the Commission several times. In 2001, the complainant got in contact with a Commission official who said that there had to be a review of the budget in order to make payment possible. At the time of making the complaint, the complainant had still not received any money or a final reply.

The complainant alleged that the European Commission breached the contract N° 1999 - 1752 / 001 - 001 CEN-CENTRE, by not paying the second part of the sum agreed under the contract within 60 days after receiving all the necessary documentation

The complainant claimed payment of that second part of the agreed amount.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

The complaint was forwarded to the Commission, who submitted the following opinion.

First of all, the Commission would like to underline the fact that, according to Article 13 of Annex II of the contract on general terms and conditions applicable to grant agreements of the European Commission, the sixty day period for payment runs from the date of the event giving rise to payment, that is to say the date when the final report has been approved and not the date when the necessary documentation has been received.

The final report was sent to the Commission at the end of November 2000. For reasons due to reorganisation of the financial services of the Directorate-General for Education and Culture and shortage of personnel, the financial assessment of the project was made in April 2001. Since this project was financed on a dissociated credits budget line, the commitment allowing the payment expired at the end of the year 2000. A new commitment on 2001 appropriations was therefore necessary to allow the financial settlement.

As regards payment of the second part of the agreed amount, this amount has been paid to the beneficiary [ i.e. the complainant ] on 4 October 2001.

The Commission recalls that the beneficiary, according to Article 13.3 of annex II of the agreement, may claim interest on late payment.

The complainant's observations

The Commission's opinion was forwarded to the complainant for observations. No observations appear to have been received.

THE DECISION

1 Failure to pay

1.1 The complainant alleged that the European Commission breached contract N° 1999 - 1752 / 001 - 001 CEN-CENTRE, by not paying the second part of the sum agreed under the contract within 60 days after receiving all the necessary documentation. The complainant claimed payment of that second part of the agreed amount.

1.2 In its opinion, the Commission stated that it had now paid an amount to the complainant.

1.3 The Ombudsman invited the complainant to submit observations, but no observations have been received. The complaint therefore appears to have been settled by the institution and the Ombudsman closes the case.

2 Conclusion

It appears that the Commission has taken steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied the complainant. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

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

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN