Dear Ms R.,

On 31 October 2001, you made a complaint on behalf of the association Europa Zentrum Baden-Württemberg to the European Ombudsman in which you alleged that the Commission had failed pay the complainant a subsidy due on time under an agreement signed between the complainant and the Commission's Directorate General for Education and Culture (call for proposals no. No 25/00).

On 10 December 2002 you sent a letter informing the European Ombudsman that the Commission had paid the subsidy due and that you were satisfied subject to payment of interest on account of late payment.

On 5 December 2002, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 14 February 2002 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. No observations were received from you. On 22 May 2002, the European Ombudsman sent further inquiries to the Commission requesting it to consider paying interest on account of late payment. On 3 July 2002, the Commission informed the Ombudsman that it was ready to pay interest on account of late payment. On 9 July 2002, I forwarded the Commission's second opinion to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. No observations were received from you. However, after my services had contacted you on 11 September 2002, you informed me that whilst you did not entirely agree with the Commission's comments you were satisfied with the payment including interest that had been made.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant is a German association, had applied to the European Commission for a grant in the context of a call for proposals for non-governmental organisations (project no NGO 00/049). The purpose of the project was to organise a seminar, Dialogue with the citizen. According to the complainant, all the necessary documents were submitted on 28 November 2000 to the Commission for payment. On 17 May 2001, the Commission's service informed the complainant that there were inconsistencies between the complainant's initial budget estimate and the final account and therefore requested the complainant to submit a revised account, which the complainant did in the end of June 2001. In the complaint lodged on 31 October 2001, the complainant claimed that the payment still not had been made and that the Commission also should pay interest on account of late payment.

By letter of 10 December 2001, the complainant informed the Ombudsman that payment had been made but that she still expected to be paid interest on account of late payment.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion, the Commission informs the Ombudsman that its services received the documents from the complainant in December 2000. Due to the fact that the final account submitted by the complainant did not correspond to the initial budget estimate, the Commission had requested the complainant to submit a revised final account of the work carried out on 17 May 2001. The complainant did so on 29 June 2001. The Commission also claims that due to a blocked budget heading, B3-3000, by the European Parliament until 7 November 2001, the payment could not be made by the Commission's bank before 20 November 2001. On 31 October 2001, the complainant wrote to the Director General of DG Education and Culture who explained the situation to the latter and apologised on behalf of his service for the payment delay.

The complainant's observations

The Commission's opinion was forwarded to the complainant for observations. No written observations from the complainant were received by the Ombudsman.

Further inquiries

After careful consideration of the Commission's opinion, the Ombudsman asked the Commission by letter of 22 May 2002 whether it could consider paying interest on account of late payment.

The Commission's second opinion

In its second opinion, the Commission stated that although it considered that it was outside its control, a beneficiary should not suffer the consequences of inter-institutional debates relating to a budget heading as in the present case, and agreed to pay interest on account of late payment to the complainant. The Commission also re-iterated its apologies for the delay occurred.

The complainant's observations

No written observations from the complainant were received by the Ombudsman. However, the complainant informed the Ombudsman whilst it did not entirely agree with the Commission's comments it was satisfied with the payment including interest that had been made.

THE DECISION

1 Failure to pay subsidy on time

1.1 The complainant, a German association, claimed that the Commission had failed to pay the subsidy that it had agreed to provide in an agreement concluded with the complainant on time. The complainant also claimed that the Commission should pay interest on account of late payment.

1.2 In its opinions, the Commission explained that due to inconsistencies between the initial budget estimate and the final account for the work carried out it had to request the complainant to submit a revised final account which delayed the payment procedure. It moreover explained that due to an inter-institutional debate between itself and the European Parliament, the budget heading concerned had been blocked until 7 November 2001, causing further delays. Payment was finally made on 20 November 2001. The Commission apologised for any inconvenience caused to the complainant and further agreed to pay interest on account of late payment.

1.3 The Ombudsman received no written observations from the complainant. However, the complainant informed the Ombudsman that whilst it did not agree with all the comments made by the Commission in its opinion, it was satisfied with the payment including interest that had been made.

2 Conclusion

On the basis of Ombudsman's inquiries into the present complaint, 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 Commission will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN