Annual report 2002 - EOI

DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY 53
The complainant’s observations on the Commission’s second opinion
The complainant replied to the arguments put forward by the Commission and pointed out
that he had received no suggestion or advice on how to improve the situation. He underlined
that his main disagreement with the Commission related to the amount of personnel
expenditures reflected in their final report, and insisted on the fact that the total costs foreseen
in the initial proposal had not suffered any increase.
THE OMBUDSMAN’S EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE A FRIENDLY SOLUTION
After careful consideration of the opinion and observations, the Ombudsman did not
consider that the Commission had responded adequately to the complainant’s claims.
The Commission had justified its request for the reimbursement of part of the expenses,
on the grounds that the complainant’s final financial request was unfounded. In particular,
the institution had taken the view that the increase of the project’s personnel costs without
prior approval from the institution was improper. The Ombudsman noted that on the basis
of point 1.1 of Annex II of the contract (Financial Aspects), the consultant was allowed to
modify the initial project’s estimates, and thus transfer money between different budget
lines.
The Ombudsman’s provisional conclusion was that in the absence of a more convincing
explanation, the reasoning given by the Commission to reject the complainant’s request for
a final payment of his project did not appear to be founded in the rules of the contract. The
Ombudsman therefore proposed that the Commission modify its stand in accordance with
the previous considerations and reconsider the complainant’s request for the final
payment.
The Commission sent its reply in February 2002. The institution explained that on the
basis of the considerations made by the Ombudsman, it had reviewed the case with a
conciliatory spirit. Taking into account that the contractor had not been given the
Commission’s administrative and financial handbook but only after the signature of the
convention and also that the foreseen aims of the project had been fully achieved, the
Commission expressed its willingness to accept the proposed budgetary changes. A letter
in that regard was to be sent to the contractor.
It pointed out, however, that in a letter of October 2001, the complainant had contested the
ineligibility of some other expenditures. In a reply dated December 2001, the Commission
requested further evidence as regards these dues.
In summary, the Commission agreed to reconsider its request for reimbursement, and to
complete the payment of the project for almost the whole amount foreseen in the contract.
This outcome should only be dependent on the need for the complainant to furnish some
additional evidence.
In his reply to the Commission’s proposal, the complainant welcomed the solution
suggested by the Commission, and agreed to furnish, as many as possible of the requested
documents. The complainant expressed his willingness to do his utmost, so that the best
possible solution could be achieved. He thanked the Ombudsman for the efforts undertaken
on his behalf.
THE DECISION
On the basis of the information gathered in the course of his inquiry, the Ombudsman
concludes that the case has been settled by the European Commission to the complainant’
satisfaction.
Against this background, the European Ombudsman decides therefore to close the case.