THE BACKGROUND TO THE COMPLAINT

1. The complainant, a German city, is twinned with a city in France.

2. On 28 November 2007, the complainant submitted to the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency ("EACEA") a grant application for a project under the 'Europe for Citizens' Programme 2007-2013 of the European Commission. This project fell within Measure 1.1 ("Town twinning Citizens' meetings") of Action 1 ("Active citizens for Europe") of the said programme.

3. On 10 April 2008, the EACEA informed the complainant that its application did not meet the criteria set out in the programme guide, as the duly completed and signed legal entity form (Formular "Rechtsträger") was missing.

4. In a letter of 23 April 2008, the complainant appealed against this decision. It pointed out that the cover letter of its application explicitly mentioned the legal entity form as being enclosed. The complainant therefore asked the EACEA to re-examine its application.

5. Further to a subsequent telephone conversation, the EACEA accepted to reconsider the application.

6. In the absence of any news, the complainant telephoned the EACEA again on 17 July 2008. On this occasion, the EACEA informed the complainant that an e-mail had been sent to it on 3 June 2008. Given that the complainant had not received this e-mail, it was re-sent by the EACEA. In this e-mail, the EACEA informed the complainant that the legal entity form had been duly submitted to the EACEA but that the official VAT document was missing and that the application thus had to be rejected.

7. In a letter sent on 21 July 2008, the complainant reiterated its view that all relevant documents, duly completed and signed had been submitted together with the application.

8. In a telephone conversation on 29 July 2008 and in an e-mail sent on 31 July 2008, the EACEA informed the complainant that its application was rejected definitely.

9. By letter of 12 September 2008, the complainant asked the EACEA to reconsider the refusal.

THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE INQUIRY

10. In its complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant basically alleged that the EACEA failed to handle its application properly. The complainant pointed out that the official document stating the VAT number had been enclosed with the application of 28 November 2007.

11. The complainant claimed that the EACEA should take a new decision on its application of 28 November 2007 and accept it.

THE INQUIRY

12. The complaint was submitted on 17 September 2008. On 27 October 2008, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry and asked the EACEA for an opinion on the complaint.

13. The EACEA sent its opinion on 30 January 2009. The opinion was forwarded to the complainant, which submitted its observations on 24 February 2009.

THE OMBUDSMAN'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

A. Allegation of failure properly to handle grant application and related claim

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

14. In its complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant basically alleged that the EACEA failed to handle its application properly. The complainant pointed out that the official document stating the VAT number had been enclosed with the application of 28 November 2007. It claimed that the EACEA should take a new decision on its application of 28 November 2007 and accept it.

15. In its opinion, the EACEA explained that the relevant Programme Guide provided as follows: "Applicants which have a VAT number must send an official VAT document with their legal entities form." The EACEA added that this requirement was repeated in part VI (checklist) of the application form and on the official legal entity form.

16. The EACEA pointed out that the complainant submitted an application in which it declared to have a VAT number.

17. The EACEA explained that the eligibility of all applications concerning the relevant phase had been verified in January 2008. The complainant's project was assessed as being non-eligible due to the fact that an official VAT document had not been submitted with the legal entity form. Following the evaluation of eligible projects by independent experts (which was carried out in the first half of February 2008), the EACEA's evaluation committee met on 14 February 2008. The committee confirmed the results of the verification of the eligibility criteria.

18. Following the communications received from the complainant in April and July 2008, the original documentation submitted by the complainant in November 2007 was again checked by different members of the EACEA's staff, who all confirmed that an official VAT document had not been supplied. The complainant was informed accordingly.

19. The EACEA accepted that its initial letter of 10 April 2008 led the complainant to conclude that what had been missing was the legal entity form. According to the EACEA, this assumption was corrected in subsequent communications sent by it, and steps had been taken to avoid such confusion in the future.

20. The EACEA stressed that the complainant had not provided any evidence to show that the relevant document had been submitted as part of the original application. The cover letter dated 27 November 2007 did not mention the official document confirming its VAT number. The EACEA further pointed out that the complainant had failed to submit a full copy of its application including the relevant document, either to the Agency or to the Ombudsman.

21. In its observations, the complainant maintained its position. It submitted that facts like the ones that gave rise to the present complaint resulted in serious reservations among citizens and municipalities towards Brussels or the EU administration. The complainant expressed the hope that such problems could be avoided in the future and that submitting applications would be made easier.

The Ombudsman's assessment

22. The Ombudsman notes that both parties agree that an official VAT document had to be submitted by the complainant in the present case.

23. It is true that the EACEA initially informed the complainant that its application had been rejected on the grounds that the legal entity form was missing. It was only after the complainant had protested against this decision that the EACEA modified its approach and informed the complainant that what was missing was not the legal entity form but the official VAT document. The Ombudsman considers that it would have been both appropriate and polite for the EACEA to apologize for the error that had occurred. However, given that the complainant has not made any specific allegation concerning this point, the Ombudsman considers that there are no grounds for further inquiries in relation to this aspect of the case.

24. When opening the present inquiry, the Ombudsman asked the EACEA to provide a copy of the complainant's application of 28 November 2007. The EACEA complied with this request. The copy of the complainant's application that was supplied by the EACEA did not contain the relevant VAT document. It further emerges that the cover letter addressed to the EACEA by the complainant, which lists the documents submitted to the latter, mentions the legal entity form but not the relevant VAT form.

25. In view of the above, the Ombudsman concludes that the complainant has not been able to establish that it submitted the relevant VAT form to the EACEA. No maladministration can thus be found in the present case.

26. In its observations, the complainant expressed the hope that such problems could be avoided in the future and that submitting applications would be made easier. The Ombudsman considers that the EACEA could indeed improve its procedure so as to try and avoid such problems in the future. A further remark will therefore be made below.

B. Conclusions

On the basis of his inquiry into this complaint, the Ombudsman closes it with the following conclusion

No maladministration could be found in the present case.

The complainant and the EACEA will be informed of this decision.

FURTHER REMARK

The application form to be used by applicants contains a check list (part VI of the document). This document contains information on the documents to be submitted together with the application. In the Ombudsman's view, it could be useful to add boxes to this document so as to allow applicants to tick the documents they enclose with their application. Alternatively, applicants could be invited to add a complete list of all the documents they enclose with their application.

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

Done in Strasbourg on 22 April 2009