Ombudsman recommends that Commission pay subcontractor under Galileo project after long delays (link)

March 21, 2005

Strasbourg, 18 March 2005

Draft recommendation to the European Commission in complaint 530/2004/GG. Strasbourg, 11 March 2005
Full text

The complainant, a small German company, took part in lot H (Galileo Market Observatory - GMO) of the Galilei project as a sub-contractor of ESYS, the principal contractor. The project co-ordinator was a company called GAIN S.A...

The complainant alleged that there had been considerable delays in payment which had caused it severe financial problems.

It made the following claims:

(1) The Commission should release the 15% of the contract sum retained by it and transfer the amount of EUR 12 948,06 to the project co-ordinator or to ESYS;

(2) The Commission should pay to the complainant interest on account of late payment for delays exceeding the period of 60 days foreseen in the contract.



In view of the above, the Ombudsman makes the following draft recommendation to the Commission, in accordance with Article 3 (6) of the Statute of the Ombudsman:

The Commission should compensate the complainant for the negative effects of its delay in handling cost statements nos 2 and 3.

The Commission and the complainant will be informed of this draft recommendation. In accordance with Article 3 (6) of the Statute of the Ombudsman, the Commission shall send a detailed opinion by 15 June 2005. The detailed opinion could consist of the acceptance of the Ombudsman's decision and a description of the measures taken to implement the draft recommendation.

linkname:European Ombudsman http:///

Please login or register to read this article.

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most commented

Recent controversy over the future directions of both Stanford and Melbourne university presses have raised questions about the role of in-house publishing arms in a world of commercialisation, impact agendas, alternative facts – and ever-diminishing monograph sales. Anna McKie reports

3 October