Annual report 2002 - EOI

DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY 51
(i) From March 1998 to February 1999: The final report had been sent to the
Commission in March 1998. Its evaluation comprised both its outcome as well as the
financial aspects. It was undertaken by the “Bureau of Technical Assistance” (BAT), which
was managed by Agenor, an independent firm contracted by the Commission. However, in
February 1999, at the end of the contractual relation with Agenor, the Commission did not
renew the contract. The tasks carried out by the BAT could not therefore be completed.
(ii) From May 1999 to January 2000: In order to complete the work previously done by
the BAT, the European Commission set up the CLEO cell, a specific Unit within the
Directorate-General for Education and Culture. This service was only in operation in May
1999, and the evaluation of the complainant’s final report was taken up again in June 1999.
Additional information was requested from the contractor in June 1999, to which he
replied by forwarding diverse supportive materials in July, September, October and
November 1999. The Commission still requested further details in December 1999, which
were forwarded on 8 December 1999. Having completed the evaluation of the report at the
end of December 1999, the Commission concluded that the financial requests of the
complainant were unfounded and that part of the sums already paid had therefore to be
reimbursed. Accordingly, it launched the appropriate procedures to have this part of the
funding recovered.
As for the Commission’s failure to complete the final payment of the project, the institution
explained that it had filed a first request for reimbursement at the end of January 2000.
Even though this type of request used to be directly sent to the consultants, the procedure
was changed when CLEO took over BAT in March 2000. Under the new scheme, requests
for reimbursement of sums already paid had first to be forwarded to the Commission’s
financial service. Once the authorising officer had agreed, the requests along with the
necessary supportive evidence were transmitted to the Directorate-General Budget, which
is the responsible DG to forward the requests directly to the contractor.
As a result of this cumbersome procedure, the request of reimbursement for an amount of
14.399 € was set at the end of February 2001.
The Commission concluded by refuting the existence of any material damages on the part
of the complainant. Since the delay did not concern a payment, but rather a request for the
reimbursement of sums already paid, the complainant could not claim damages.
The complainant’s observations
In his observations, the complainant considered that the Commission had taken a very
administrative perspective, which did not correspond to the importance of the project and
the efforts all the parties had made for its development.
The complainant explained that the institution had not clearly identified the reasons, which
justified the request for reimbursement. From the information received, he contested the
financial evaluation carried out by the institution, in particular as regards personnel
expenses. At the time the project was set out, in 1995, it was hard to forecast how the work
would unfold. As a result, it had become necessary to increase the amount initially devoted
to personnel at the expense of other budget lines. Nevertheless, the total cost of the project
had remained unchanged. The Commission, on the other hand, never informed the
complainants about the procedure to be followed to change the initial estimates. The
complainant also requested that the request for reimbursement be suspended until the
Ombudsman had taken a decision on this matter.