Annual report 2002 - EOI

90 ANNUAL REPORT | 2002
1.4 The Ombudsman welcomed the Commission’s efforts to solve the case and its
proposal to pay 50% of the preparatory work, namely 269 hours at the hourly rate of 62w,
this showed that the Commission had accepted the principle that 14 teachers had spent
time on preparatory work. However, it was unclear why the Commission was not ready to
pay the full amount originally approved, since it appeared that the complainant provided
evidences for the 538 hours of work.
The Ombudsman considered that the refusal by the Commission to pay the totality of
hours spent on preparatory work might establish an instance of maladministration.
1.5 The Ombudsman therefore submitted a proposal for a friendly solution to the
Commission. He invited the Commission to reconsider its position by accepting also to
pay the remaining preparatory hours, thus 269 working hours.
1.6 The Commission accepted the Ombudsman’s proposal and the complainant expressed
his satisfaction with the outcome of the inquiry.
2 Conclusion
Following the Ombudsman’s initiative, it appears that a friendly solution to the complaint
has been agreed between the European Commission and the complainant. The
Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
CONVERSION OF
AN ECIP LOAN
INTO A GRANT
Decision on complaint
1544/2001/IJH against
the European
Commission
THE COMPLAINT
In October 2001, the Finance Director of a company, SRE, complained to the Ombudsman
against the Commission on behalf of SRE. The complaint concerns a European
Community Investment Partners (ECIP) loan made to SRE in 1998. According to the
complainant, the facts are as follows:
The ECIP loan was funded by the Commission and made available to the complainant
through a financial intermediary, Banque Paribas Luxembourg (Paribas). The purpose of
the loan was to finance a feasibility study and a pilot project for the setting up of a joint
venture with China.
In February 2000, the complainant applied for the loan to be converted into a grant in
accordance with the terms of the finance agreement and the regulations governing the
ECIP programme. The application was based on the central finding of the Final Report
that a joint venture was not feasible.
On 27 July 2000, the Commission’s technical assistance unit informed the complainant
that it had recommended approval of the conversion, but no decision had been taken
because of a reserve entered by the Financial Secretariat. The technical assistance unit
recommended the complainant to contact the Financial Secretariat for further information.
The complainant did so, but the responsible person refused to discuss the matter, referring
the complainant to Paribas. Paribas could provide the complainant with no information
other than that the Commission was in the process of re-organising the ECIP programme.
The complainant sent letters to the ECIP unit in DG 1 (External Relations) of the
Commission on 10 January 2001 and 26 February 2001, but the letters were not answered.
On 10 August 2001, Paribas informed the complainant that the Commission refused to
convert the loan to a grant and that the complainant must therefore repay the amount of
almost EUR 200 000. The reason given was that “the terms of reference have been
respected in the final report, however, the reasons for non-investment are not acceptable”.