Annual report 2002 - EOI

68 ANNUAL REPORT | 2002
The ECIP Directing Committee recommended that the Commission consider the project
eligible under action number 3207. This was notified to the complainant by letter of 21
January 1998 which stated that this neither prejudiced the Commission’s formal approval
of the proposal nor constituted a commitment on the part of the Commission. The
Commission’s formal decision was sent on 25 August 1998 together with the Specific
Contract to be signed by the complainant, the Final Beneficiary and the Commission. This
contract contained in annex 2 the provisional budgetary costs presented by the applicant,
namely a total amount of 170 000 €, with a Community co-financing of 50%, namely
85 000 €.
On 24 February 1999, the complainant presented the financial balance for the final
payment. The Commission services evaluated the eligible costs to be 94 415,63 €. On 19
October 2000, the Commission informed the complainant of the result of the financial
evaluation and of the transfer of 4 707,81 € (a first payment had been made and received
on 16 September 1999, for the amount of 42 500 €, namely 50% of the subvention granted
on basis of Facility 1, Article 5 of the contract). This final payment brought the
Commission’s participation to an amount of 47 207,81 €.
On 22 November 2000, the complainant informed the Commission of its disagreement on
the evaluation of the eligible costs, considering that certain costs had unjustifiably been
considered as ineligible. The Commission’s services replied on 30 April 2001 recalling the
rules and procedures of the ECIP programme contained in the specific contract 23 between
the EC and the Final Beneficiary.
On 27 September 2001, considering that the project had been implemented by the
complainant in a satisfactory way, the Commission’s services re-examined certain costs
and re-evaluated the total eligible cost from 94 415,63 € to 101 011,70 €.
Notwithstanding this conciliation effort, the complainant persisted in requesting the reimbursement
of certain costs, which had been judged ineligible, and this on the basis of a
diverging interpretation of the General Conditions’ provisions annexed to the contract.
Afterwards, the complainant informed the Commission that it would bring the matter to
the European Ombudsman.
As regards the complainant’s allegations, the Commission, pointing out the Court of
Justice’s competence to deal with disputes arising from the contract, wished to clarify to
the Ombudsman the legal basis of its action and the arguments on which it based its interpretation:
1 As regards the allegation that its dealing of the file was abnormally long, the
Commission regretted the delays in the treatment of the case. The Commission explained
that these delays were due to the problems encountered in the management of the
programme such as the shortage of personnel and the various internal restructuring procedures,
as well as to the decision to terminate the ECIP programme.
In accordance with its own commitments, the Commission is ready to pay to the Final
Beneficiary the interests for the delay in transferring the subvention amounts, even if this
is not explicitly foreseen in the contract.
2 As regards the allegation concerning the ambiguity of the texts drafted in English, the
Commission observed that by signing the contract, the complainant accepted its terms,
which presupposes that he understood them. The complainant can therefore not a posteriori
invoke the incomprehension of the terms. The Commission services could always
have provided answers to clarification requests or a translation.
23
The specific contract contains the following annexes : the terms of reference (annex 1), the budgetary costs
(annex 2) and the general conditions (annex 3).