European Ombudsman
Beslut i ärende 1962/2009/KM - Påstådd felräkning av EU-bidrag inom en stödåtgärd
Beslut
Ärende 1962/2009/KM - Undersökning inledd den 31/08/2009 - Beslut den 18/02/2010
Ett tyskt innovations- och teknikkonsultföretag som erbjuder tjänster till forskningsföretag och kunskapsbaserade företag klagade på kommissionens beslut att till företaget inte betala ut hela den summa som överenskommits med kommissionen i avtalet. Företaget hade deltagit i en särskild stödåtgärd som finansieras av Europeiska kommissionen gällande tekniköverföring rörande förnybar energi.
Enligt avtalet så var det maximal EU-bidraget till projektet 866 300,11 EUR, var av den klagande skulle få 134 149,21 EUR. Efter att kommissionens generaldirektorat för energi och transport fått slutrapporten så betalade de ut 60,55 % av den klagandes kostnader för den första avtalsperioden (P1) och 70,66 % av deras kostnader för den andra avtalsperioden (P2).
Den klagande protesterade och påpekade att avtalet specificerade en maximal procentsats av bidraget på 100 %. Generaldirektoratet för energi och transport svarade att den
procentsats som angavs i kontraktet var den maximala procentsatsen för bidraget och att kommissionen därför hade rätt att reducera sin procentsats för bidraget. Klaganden svarade kommissionen och uttryckte sitt missnöje. Företaget lämnade in ett klagomål till Europeiska ombudsmannen och hävdade att generaldirektoratet för energi och transport hade beräknat EU-bidraget fel och tillämpade en procentsats på bidraget som stred mot avtalet. Företaget hävdade också att generaldirektoratet för energi och transport hade varit långsamma i hanteringen av projektet.
I sitt yttrande förklarade kommissionen att den procentsats för bidraget som de hade tillämpat var ett resultat av en expertrekommendation som sa att projektparterna visade sitt engagemang i projektet genom att bidra med 20 % av projektresurserna. Detta hade
överenskommits och angetts i budgettabellerna. Men eftersom dess budgettabeller endast var vägledande och procentsatsen 80 % inte angavs någon annanstans i avtalet så
omprövade kommissionen frågan. De ersatte projektparterna genom att använda
procentsatsen 100 % samtidigt som de respekterade det maximala beloppet för sitt bidrag i enlighet med vad som angavs i avtalet, vilket var 866 300,11 EUR När det gällde den
påstådda förseningen underströk kommissionen att den process som ledde fram till beslutet om betalning var lång men att den hela tiden följdes upp aktivt.
Den klagande informerade ombudsmannen om att kommissionen hade godtagit klagomålet och räknat om sitt bidrag samt att den hade fört över de utestående fordringarna. Företaget ansåg att ärendet hade lösts.
Mot bakgrund av detta avslutade ombudsmannen sin undersökning som löst av kommissionen.
THE BACKGROUND TO THE COMPLAINT
1. The complainant is a German innovation and technology consultancy providing services to research and knowledge-based businesses. It participated in a Specific Support Action which was funded by the European Commission and focused on making the results of European research into renewable energy and energy efficiency more commercially exploitable.
2. The contract provided that the maximum EU contribution to the project amounted to EUR 866,300.11, and EUR 134,149.21 would be the maximum contribution the EU would make towards the complainant's project costs. The final report was submitted in February 2008, but was accepted by the Commission's Directorate-General for Energy and Transport ('DG TREN') only in November 2008.
3. On 27 February 2009, the Commission's DG TREN sent a letter to the project coordinator announcing the final payments it intended to make. The Commission envisaged reimbursing only 60.55% of the complainant's total accepted costs as regards the first contractual period (P1), and 70.66% as regards the second contractual period (P2).
4. On 19 March 2009, the complainant objected to the proposed reduction in payments. The complainant noted that it had so far received only EUR 106,515.28. It demanded, therefore, to be paid EUR 27,633.93, which was the difference between the amount agreed in the contract and the sum already paid by DG TREN. The complainant pointed out that the contract had specified a maximum contribution rate of 100%.
5. On 20 May 2009, DG TREN replied stating that the rates indicated in the contract were maximum contribution rates and that the Commission was, therefore, entitled to reduce its contribution rate. However, DG TREN announced that its financial unit would revise the calculation and take into account some costs initially rejected in relation to P1.
6. On 30 June 2009, the complainant received an e-mail from DG TREN stating that it would be paid an extra EUR 11,621.29, since the complainant's total eligible costs were now considered to be EUR 167,862.25, and the Commission's contribution, therefore, amounted to EUR 118,136.57. This figure represented 70.07% of the total eligible costs of EUR 80,490.61 for P1 (EUR 56,399.77), and 70.66% of the total eligible costs for P2 of EUR 87,371.64 (EUR 61,736.80).
7. On 1 July 2009, the complainant replied to DG TREN, agreeing that the total eligible costs amounted to EUR 167,862.25. However, it stated that it did not agree with the contribution rates applied by the Commission. According to the complainant, these rates did not have any contractual basis. The complainant reiterated that the total contribution it demanded, namely, EUR 134,149.21, was the sum provided for in Annex I to the contract. This, in fact, translated into an EU contribution rate of 79.92%, which was in line with the proposal that project partners would contribute 20% of the project resources.
8. The complainant made the following allegations:
- DG TREN miscalculated the Community contribution by EUR 27,633.93. In particular, the contribution rates applied by DG TREN were not foreseen in the contract which merely stipulated a maximum contribution of 100%.
- DG TREN was slow in dealing with the relevant project. In particular, the project report was submitted in February 2008 but only accepted in November 2008. The final calculation was sent on 27 February 2009.
Further, even though DG TREN had accepted that the complainant should be paid EUR 11,621.29, this amount had not been transferred yet.
Finally, the complainant had not yet received a reply to its letter of 1 July 2009.
9. The complainant claimed that DG TREN should formally acknowledge that it owed the complainant EUR 27,633.93 and immediately transfer the said amount plus interest running from 27 February 2009 until the date of payment at a rate of 3.5 % above the EIB interbank rate in accordance with the contract.
THE INQUIRY
10. The complaint was submitted on 31 July 2009. On 31 August 2009, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry and asked the Commission for an opinion on the complaint.
11. The Commission submitted its opinion on 7 January 2010.
12. On 12 January 2010, the complainant informed the Ombudsman that the Commission had accepted its complaint, recalculated its contribution and made a transfer of the sums which were due. The complainant thanked the Ombudsman for his work on the case. In a subsequent telephone conversation with the Office of the European Ombudsman, it stated that it considered the case to have been settled.
THE OMBUDSMAN'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Alleged miscalculation of the Community contribution and corresponding claim, alleged unnecessary delay and alleged failure to reply
Arguments presented to the Ombudsman Alleged miscalculation of the EU contribution
13. In its opinion, the Commission explained how it had arrived at the contribution rates it had applied. During the negotiation of the contract, it had been agreed that its contribution would be less than 100% of the eligible costs. This was in accordance with a
recommendation, which was made as the result of an expert evaluation of the project, whereby the project partners were to demonstrate their commitment to the project by contributing 20% of the project resources. The contribution rates foreseen in the budgetary table were set accordingly, and the Commission had applied these rates.
14. However, since such budgetary tables were only indicative and since the rate of 80% did not appear elsewhere in the contract, the Commission noted that it had decided to apply the 100% contribution rate, whilst respecting the maximum amount for its contribution to the project as a whole, as stipulated in the contract, namely, EUR 866,300.11. In a letter dated 3 December 2009, it informed the coordinator and the complainant that it would make a final payment of EUR 37,944.73. This represented the difference between the sum it had already paid the coordinator, namely, EUR 828,355.38, and the maximum sum of EUR 866,300.11 which it had agreed to pay.
15. As regards the complainant's claim for interest, the Commission stated that the complainant had not asked for late payment interest, as it should have done under the contract, before submitting its complaint to the Ombudsman. In any event, the Commission argued that no late payment interest was due because the complainant's right to further payment was acknowledged only on 3 December 2009, and had not existed on 27 February 2009.
Alleged unnecessary delay and alleged failure to reply
16. The Commission underlined that the process leading up to the payment decision of 27 February 2009 was long, but that it was always followed up actively. After the final report was submitted in April 2008, a number of changes were made and clarifications had to be sought through correspondence between the Commission and the project coordinator. Further delay was caused by the fact that the complainant revised its costs statement after the audit.
17. The Commission had not immediately paid the sum of EUR 11,621.29 because it was awaiting comments which it had requested from the complainant. As regards the letter of 1 July 2009, it stated that it had sent a reply on 3 December 2009.
18. The complainant informed the Ombudsman that it considered the case to have been settled.
The Ombudsman's assessment
19. In view of the above, the Ombudsman considers that, following his intervention, the Commission settled the case to the complainant's satisfaction. He, therefore, closes his inquiry.
B. Conclusions
On the basis of his inquiry into this complaint, the Ombudsman closes it with the following conclusion:
The Ombudsman considers that the Commission settled the case to the complainant's
The complainant and the Commission will be informed of this decision.
P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS
Done in Strasbourg on 18 February 2010
