Annual report 2002 - EOI

70 ANNUAL REPORT | 2002
agreed, and 4) the Commission’s representatives were partial in their argumentation based
on a restrictive interpretation of the contract.
1.2 In its opinion, the Commission rejected the complainant’s allegations. The
Commission however stated that its services accepted to meet the beneficiary of the
payment in order to close the file, and that a meeting was scheduled to take place in
Brussels in the month of May 2002.
1.3 In his observations, the complainant pointed out that the meeting with the
Commission’s services took place on 15 May 2002. At this meeting an equitable agreement
was found for a definitive payment of 29 067,50 €. This amount was credited to the
complainant’s account on 24 May 2002. The complainant thanked the Ombudsman for his
intervention, which positively solved the present case.
1.4 It appears from the complainant’s observations that the Commission has finally
agreed to pay the final sum of 29 067,50 € and has settled the case.
2 Conclusion
It appears from the Commission’s comments and the complainant’s observations that the
Commission has taken steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied the complainant.
The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
THE COMMISSION
ACCEPTS TO
CHANGE A CON-
TRACT IN ORDER
TO TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION
ALL THE COSTS OF
A PROJECT
Decision on complaint
114/2002/ADB against
the European
Commission
THE COMPLAINT
The complainant’s company Schlumberger Industries S.A. (France), together with the
Université catholique de Louvain (Belgium), the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones
Científicas (Spain) and the École Nationale Supérieure des Télécommunications (France),
entered into an IST (Information Society Technologies) contract with the Commission in
order to receive funds for a project.
The contract itself, as well as Annex I were negotiated with the Commission. Annex II is
a standard annex for all IST contracts. The contract was signed in December 1999 and the
project started in March 2000. On 22 March 2001, the Commission informed the
contracting parties that there was an inconsistency between the contract itself and the standard
part (Annex II). In fact, the latter excluded the funding of items that had been negotiated
and agreed in the contract and in Annex I.
Despite several contacts with the complainant, the Commission failed to find an acceptable
solution. The complainant therefore lodged a complaint with the European
Ombudsman and claimed a solution leading to the acceptance of the disputed costs and the
conclusion of a workable contract.
THE INQUIRY
The Commission’s opinion
The Commission did not contest the complainant’s allegations. As requested by the
complainant in his complaint, the Commission accepted to change the contract to enable
all costs incurred by the project to be taken into consideration.
In order to avoid similar situations in the future, the Commission expressed its intention
to reduce the number of standard contracts and to simplify them.