Background to the complaint

1. The complainant, a foundation active in the field of electoral assistance, submitted an application in the context of a call for proposals for EU funding for a project to support pan-African electoral capacities.[1] The call was managed by the European Union Delegation to the African Union under the responsibility of the European Commission, as the ‘contracting authority’. The call for proposals was divided into two lots. The complainant applied for Lot 1.

2. As part of the application process, the complainant submitted a concept note in which it requested EU funding amounting to 90% of the eligible costs.[2] The complainant’s application was pre-selected, and it was invited to submit a full application. In the full application, the complainant requested EU funding amounting to 95% of the eligible costs.

3. The Commission rejected the complainant’s application because it no longer satisfied all the criteria of the call for proposals, notably because the percentage of the EU funding requested was above the threshold of 90%. 

4. On 29 July 2023, the complainant asked the Delegation to reconsider this decision. It argued that this was a typographical error, which was due to the preparation of several applications for EU funding at the same time. It considered that the Delegation should have asked for clarifications instead of rejecting its application. The complainant also raised concerns with the Delegation about a potential conflict of interest in relation to Lot 2 of the call. It argued that an expert who had been involved in the development of the project funded under this call is working for an entity that applied for Lot 2.

5. On 2 August 2023, the Delegation replied. It maintained its position on the rejection of the complainant’s application. It stated that the complainant should have received a warning message on the online application system when it provided information that was not in line with the call guidelines. Regarding the complainant’s allegations of a potential conflict of interest in relation to Lot 2, the Delegation explained that the call was prepared internally by the project managers of the Delegation, and that it did not identify any conflict of interest.

6. Dissatisfied with the Delegation’s reply, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in September 2023.

The inquiry

7. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the Delegation’s decision to reject the complainant’s application and how it handled the complainant’s concerns of a potential conflict of interest in relation to Lot 2.

8. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman inspected the file on the case. The Delegation also provided clarifications in reply to questions set out by the Ombudsman. The reply was shared with the complainant, which provided comments.

9. The Ombudsman inquiry team subsequently met with the representatives of the Commission and the Delegation to obtain further clarifications on both aspects of the complaint. The Ombudsman shared the meeting report with the complainant, and the complainant provided comments on the report.

The rejection of the complainant’s application

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

By the Commission

10. The Commission clarified the grounds for rejecting the application. It explained that the Guidelines for grant applicants, which form part of the call documents, set out that applicants could request an EU grant for a maximum of 90% of eligible costs.[3] The call documents included a “checklist for self-guidance”, annexed to the Guidelines, which invited applicants to check whether they satisfied all the criteria of the call before submitting their application, including ensuring that the percentage of EU contribution requested did not exceed the maximum threshold.[4] The call stated that “any error related to the points listed in the checklist [...] or any major inconsistency in the full application (e.g. if the amounts in the budget worksheets are inconsistent) may lead to the rejection of the application”.

11. In this case, the Delegation rejected the complainant’s application because it did not comply with one of the points listed in the checklist, namely that it requested an amount of EU funding that exceeded the maximum percentage allowed under the call.

12. The Commission noted that it has the possibility, under the call, to request clarifications “when information provided is unclear”. This is in line with the Financial Regulation,[5] which allows for the correction of obvious clerical errors in application documents in order to avoid the rejection of good quality applications on purely formal grounds.[6] While the Financial Regulation does not include a definition of what constitutes an obvious clerical error, according to the Commission’s internal guidelines, such errors include calculation mistakes in the budget or manifest misunderstanding of the application form. It is for the Commission, on a case-by-case basis, to identify which circumstances may constitute an obvious clerical error. The Commission then has discretion to decide whether it is justified, based on the specific situation, to correct the error, which is a possibility and not an obligation under the Financial Regulation.

13. In this case, the Commission considered that it was not justified to ask the complainant for clarification or to correct the error because the complainant’s mistake was not an obvious clerical error. The Commission considered that the complainant had “consistently and consciously“ used the 95% figure (and not 90%) as the percentage of EU funding in the budget annexed to the full application. It noted that proposing a 5% co-contribution appeared to be the complainant’s standard policy, as indicated in the letter to the Delegation of 29 July 2023, and was thus a conscious choice of the complainant.

14. Moreover, the Commission argued that the error was not a simple and easily recognisable error, with one figure incorrectly used, a miscalculation, an inconsistency in the budget sheet or an error indicating that the complainant had misunderstood the conditions of the call. Rather, the complainant calculated the whole budget sheet by multiplying the estimated eligible costs by the desired percentage of EU funding. The Commission thus claimed that, as the complainant’s error was “not a formal deficiency but a substantial deviation from the conditions of the call”, its correction would have led to a breach of equal treatment between applicants.

15. The Commission also argued that, in line with EU case-law,[7] an obvious clerical error cannot pertain to information that is required in order for the application not to be rejected, as occurred in this case. In particular, the Commission noted that it was clear from the call documents that proposals including requests for a percentage of EU funding higher than the maximum allowed was a ground for rejection of the application.

16. In addition, the Commission noted that, before submitting its application, the complainant should have received a warning message about the error on the online application system. Based on a subsequent simulation using the online application system, the Commission said that the following message appeared “important information (not blocking) Requested EU contribution as % of total eligible costs please refer to section 1.3 of the guidelines for the percentage(s) allowed under the call (or lot)”.

By the complainant

17. The complainant claimed that the Commission's position is manifestly unreasonable. It argued that the error made was an obvious clerical error and that the Commission should have requested clarifications from it, and not rejected the application.

18. The complainant argued that it did not deliberately commit this mistake as it submitted the full application with the aim to be selected. It had requested the correct percentage of EU funding in the concept note. In a letter to the Delegation, it had indeed clarified how it had made the mistake. This was because the EU had changed the standard percentage of EU funding from 95% to 90%. The complainant argued that the letter to the Delegation explaining the mistake cannot reasonably constitute evidence that it intentionally changed the percentage in its application.

19. Moreover, the complainant stated that the notion of obvious clerical error is not limited to ‘excusable errors’, which concern situations arising from ambiguity or unclear instructions in the call documentation. It also covers clerical errors, such as cases where there is a clear and manifest inconsistency between the percentage indicated at two distinct stages of the selection procedure, as in this case. 

20. The complainant thus considered that the Commission’s decision to exclude it from the procedure was disproportionate and contrary to the principle of sound financial management. The complainant argued that the Commission should have requested clarifications and that this would not have modified its application nor conferred it any advantage as the maximum amount of EU funding applied equally to all applicants.

21. Regarding the warning message, the complainant argued that the Commission provided no proof that such a message appeared at the time it submitted its application. The Commission merely relied on a subsequent simulation, rather than on concrete evidence from when it had used the application form. Moreover, even if such a message appeared, the Commission failed to explain why it did not put in place more effective and immediate safeguards, such as instantly notifying the applicant that the submission was inadmissible or outright preventing its submission.

The Ombudsman's assessment

22. The Financial Regulation allows for the correction of ‘obvious clerical errors’ in order to prevent the rejection of good quality applications on purely formal grounds.[8] While there is no precise definition of what constitutes an obvious clerical error, in the Commission’s internal guidelines,[9] such errors are defined as missing information/data, easily recognizable textual error (mistake/omission) and contradicting information. These can be, for instance, the re-calculation of costs initially miscalculated, an applicant who did not understand correctly where to present the EU contribution in the budget, or an applicant that requested a higher grant than the maximum allowed by the call. It can also include a requested grant amount not filled in, or the wrong choice of type of action or the wrong choice of PIC number.

23. Moreover, to be considered an obvious clerical error, such error should not require a correction that would result in a substantial change of the application or alter the terms of the call, as this would question the evaluation results and affect the equality of treatment between applicants. In this regard, if an applicant makes a mistake in relation to any of the admissibility or eligibility criteria, then such a mistake cannot be considered an obvious clerical error because the failure to comply with such criteria is, in itself, a ground for rejection of an application.

24. The Commission argued that the complainant’s mistake was a conscious choice and cannot be considered an obvious clerical error. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that the complainant could have acted more diligently when it submitted its application, the Ombudsman is not convinced by the explanation provided by the Commission for the following reasons.

25. Regarding the complainant’s intention, the Ombudsman finds the Commission’s position unconvincing. The complainant had no interest in submitting an application with a percentage of EU funding higher than the maximum allowed under the call. Furthermore, it had initially used the correct percentage in the concept note. The complainant’s letter of 29 July 2023 to the Delegation does not demonstrate that the mistake was intentional. Rather, in this letter, the complainant explained why it made the mistake in the full application, namely that it automatically used the same percentage it had used in previous calls (5% co-contribution), which was the Commission standard percentage of EU funding provided in previous calls. The fact that the complainant also raised concerns in this letter regarding the decreased percentage of EU funding does not in any way prove that the mistake was intentional or that proposing a 5% co-contribution was the complainant’s “standard policy”.

26. The Ombudsman takes the view that, based on the Commission’s own internal guidelines, the complainant’s mistake should have been considered an obvious clerical error. It was an easily recognisable mistake as it was not possible for an entity to receive EU funding amounting to more than 90%, and it contradicted information previously provided by the complainant in the concept note. Moreover, contrary to the Commission’s claim, the error did not affect the whole budget. In the grant application form, the complainant calculated all costs independent from the amount of EU funding received. The error concerned only one formula on one budget sheet.[10]

27. In any case, obvious clerical errors are not limited in number or their extent, nor are they limited to cases where an applicant misunderstands the rules. In its internal guidelines, the Commission mentions as examples of obvious clerical errors the fact that an applicant asked for a grant higher than the maximum allowed by the call or failed altogether to fill-in the grant amount. These situations are similar to the one at issue in this case.

28. While the maximum percentage of EU funding is a formal requirement under the call, it is not an admissibility or eligibility criteria. Thus, the fact that an application includes a figure that does not comply with this requirement should not, in itself, be a reason for rejecting the application. Correcting a proposal to ensure that the percentage of EU funding complies with the threshold would not substantially change the application, but is rather a formality. It is an administrative check which would have no impact on the evaluation of the application. Correcting such an error would have simply resulted in a reduction of the grant amount requested. While the percentage of EU funding was included in the call’s “checklist for self-guidance”, which sets out that “any error related to the points listed in the checklist [...] may lead to the rejection of the application”, the Commission has to apply this checklist in compliance with the Financial Regulation, which imposes a duty on the responsible authorising officer to correct or seek clarification about obvious clerical errors.

29. Regarding the Commission’s claim that there is no obligation to request clarification or correct obvious clerical errors, the Ombudsman notes that, while the Financial Regulation sets out that the contracting authority ”may” correct obvious clerical errors, the same provision states that it should (”shall”) request clarification, except in duly justified cases.[11] Moreover, the Commission’s own internal guidelines explicitly provide that, in line with the principle of good administration, the responsible authorising officer has to request applicants for missing information or to clarify supporting documents which they failed to provide due to an obvious clerical error.

30. Regarding the warning message on the online application system, the Ombudsman notes that the Commission was unable to confirm with certainty the content of the pop-up message, which the complainant should have received when it submitted its application. In any event, based on the simulation provided by the Commission, the Ombudsman notes that the warning message is rather general and does not clearly indicate that there is a mistake in the application. Moreover, even if the warning message had been more explicit, and the complainant should have been more diligent when submitting its application, this does not change the fact that the Commission should have asked for clarification or corrected obvious clerical errors.

31. In light of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission’s failure to ask the complainant for clarification and/or to correct the complainant’s obvious clerical error amounts to maladministration. However, the Ombudsman finds that there is no appropriate recommendation to make in relation to this aspect of the complaint because there is nothing that the Commission can do, at this stage, to rectify this failure. In particular, the grant has been awarded to another entity which has acquired rights under the grant agreement.[12] Nevertheless, the Ombudsman notes that failing to correct or seek clarification for obvious clerical errors may result in the rejection of good quality applications on purely formal grounds, which is not in the EU’s financial interest. The Ombudsman will therefore make a suggestion for improvement with a view to preventing a similar situation occurring in the future. The Ombudsman will also make a suggestion for improvement on the issue identified in this inquiry in regard to the warning message issued to applicants on the online application system. 

How the Delegation handled the alleged conflict of interest

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

By the Commission

32. The Commission argued that there was no conflict of interest in this case given that the Commission had no direct contractual relationship with the expert in question and the expert did not perform any activities directly related to the call and was not involved in its preparation.

33. The Commission explained that the expert was hired by a partner organisation as a short-term strategy expert in the context of another EU-funded project to improve governance in the member states of the African Union. The project was implemented by the partner organisation under a ‘contribution agreement’ with the Commission.

34. In this context, between December 2021 and March 2022, the expert worked on a ‘technical assistance mission’ to develop and design a project to be funded by the EU to strengthen electoral processes in Africa. The expert drafted two documents, an ‘annual action fiche’ and a ‘logical framework’, which were submitted by the partner organisation to the Commission. The Commission then extensively revised the documents, which were used as a basis to draft the action document “Support for the Harmonization of pan-African Electoral Capacities”. This document was published as an annex to the Commission implementing decision of December 2022, on which it based its decision to launch the call for proposals in question.

35. The Commission emphasised that the final action document differed substantially from the documents produced by the expert in the context of the contribution agreement, in particular in terms of content, length, structure and implementation modalities. Moreover, the Commission claimed that a long period of time had passed between the end of the expert’s work in March 2022 and the launch of the call for proposals in January 2023.

36. Furthermore, the Commission noted that, during the consultation process for the drafting of the action document, all applicants, including the complainant, had been invited to share views in order to ensure equality of treatment between applicants.

37. The Commission explained that, when the decision was taken to award the grant, it was not aware of the alleged involvement of the expert with the successful applicant. In particular, the successful applicant did not identify the expert in its application nor did it declare the expert’s involvement in its declaration on honour or notify the Commission of a potential conflict of interest. The Commission stated that, once the complainant raised the matter with the Delegation, it thoroughly investigated the matter and found that there was no conflict of interest. It did not contact the successful applicant for clarifications, as it considered that the expert’s tasks did not raise concerns of a conflict of interest. The findings of the Delegation were directly included in the written reply received by the complainant on 2 August 2023. The Commission also confirmed that the entity in question was awarded the grant for Lot 2 of the call.[13]

By the complainant

38. The complainant claimed that the Commission could not reasonably argue that it did not know that the expert was involved with the successful applicant, as this is public information. It further claimed that the Commission should have thoroughly examined the matter prior to awarding the grant. It noted that, from the Commission’s reply, there was no indication that this was the case.  

39. The complainant argued that its allegations raised concerns of a potential conflict of interest, which the Delegation should have thoroughly investigated and potentially adopted measures to mitigate any risk. In particular, the complainant claimed that the Delegation should have investigated the relationship between the expert and the successful applicant and assessed whether the expert’s work on the call’s preparatory documents gave it a potential advantage, including privileged access to information not equally available to other applicants.

40. Moreover, the complainant claimed that the Commission could not reasonably consider that the consultation process sufficiently remedied the situation and ensured equal treatment between applicants.

The Ombudsman's assessment

41. According to the Financial Regulation,[14] a grant applicant should be rejected from an award procedure if the applicant was “previously involved in the preparation of documents used in the award procedure where this entails a breach of the principle of equality of treatment, including distortion of competition, that cannot be remedied otherwise”. [15] It is for the grant applicant to declare to the contracting authority whether it finds itself in the situation referred above.[16]

42. As explained by the Commission, and as confirmed by the documents inspected by the Ombudsman inquiry team, the successful applicant had not declared any potential conflict of interest in relation to Lot 2 of the call and did not include the name of the expert in its grant application. It is only when the complainant raised the matter with the Delegation, by letter of 29 July 2023, that the Delegation became aware of the matter.

43. The Ombudsman notes that the Delegation’s assessment, in reply to the complainant, was limited to explaining that the call for proposals “was prepared internally by the Project Managers of the European Delegation to AU” and that, therefore, it “[did] not see the existence of any conflict of interest in this instance”.[17] It is only in the context of the Ombudsman’s inquiry that the Commission provided additional explanations. In particular, it noted that the expert had no direct contractual relationship with the Commission and did not perform activities directly related to the call. Rather, the expert drafted two documents, which had been extensively revised by the Commission and used as a basis to draft the action document “Support for the Harmonization of pan-African Electoral Capacities”, based on which the call for proposals at issue in this case had been launched.

44. However, the Ombudsman considers that the fact that the expert had no direct contractual relationship with the Commission should not have prevented the Commission from assessing whether the expert’s involvement gave rise to a potential conflict of interest of the grant applicant, in line with the Financial Regulation.

45. Regarding the expert’s involvement in drafting documents used in the award procedure, the Ombudsman notes that there is no clear guidance as to what constitutes ‘documents used in the award procedure’. The Ombudsman finds that a restrictive reading of Article 141(1)(c) of the Financial Regulation would be contrary to the purpose of this provision, which aims to prevent the distortion of competition in case of the involvement of an expert in the preparatory phase of a call. The core assessment should thus not be about whether there is a direct or indirect link between the tasks of the expert and the award documents, but whether the information obtained by the expert when carrying out these tasks potentially distorted competition and, if so, what remedial actions could be put in place.

46. Having inspected the documents at issue, and based on the Commission’s explanation, the Ombudsman finds that, while the documents prepared by the expert are not directly part of the documents of the call, there is a clear link between them. In particular, the documents prepared by the expert are the initial drafts of documents that were used by the Commission to draft an action document, based on which it launched the call for proposals. The inspection of the documents showed that the Commission’s action document is a further development of the expert’s work.

47. On this basis, the Ombudsman is of the view that, given that the documents drafted by the expert had a clear link with the call in question, this should have at least raised concerns over a potential conflict of interest. The Ombudsman thus finds that how the Delegation assessed whether there was a potential conflict of interest, as set out in the reply to the complainant, is not satisfactory. The Delegation failed to consider the link between the expert’s work and the call, or to assess whether the expert’s prior involvement gave a competitive advantage to the grant applicant and/or distorted competition.

48. In the reply to the Ombudsman, the Commission argued that there was no distortion of competition or unfair advantage because the action document differed significantly from the documents produced by the expert, and that a long period of time has passed between the expert’s work and the launch of the call for proposals.

49. The Ombudsman is not convinced by the Commission’s reply. The period between the expert’s work on the project and the publication of the call (nine months) was not particularly long. Moreover, nothing indicates that this nine-month period diminished the relevance of the expert’s work.

50. The Commission failed to assess whether the expert’s work on the documents linked to the call gave the successful applicant a competitive advantage, and/or distorted competition. The fact that the Commission further developed and substantially changed the expert’s initial drafts does not exclude the fact that the awarded entity may have access to privileged information, which gave it an advantage when formulating its application. For instance, as the expert worked for the successful applicant, he may have had access to additional information or experience from carrying out such tasks that would not be available to other grant applicants.

51. Regarding the consultation process mentioned by the Commission, the Ombudsman finds that this is a separate procedure, and that this does not demonstrate that the information obtained by the expert in the context of his work on the documents linked to the call was equally available to all participants.

52. However, while the Delegation’s assessment of the potential conflict of interest was deficient, the Ombudsman is not in a position to determine whether there was, in fact, a breach of the principle of equality of treatment and/or a distortion of competition in this case. As the Delegation and the Commission failed to investigate the matter, there is thus not sufficient information available, on, for instance, the tasks and position of the expert for the successful applicant. Besides the Delegation’s reply to the complainant and the additional arguments provided by the Commission in the context of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, there are no documents in the inspected file proving that the Commission has thoroughly assessed the matter.

53. In light of the above, the Ombudsman finds that the Commission’s failure to adequately assess the allegations of the complainant regarding a potential conflict of interest amounts to maladministration. However, the Ombudsman finds that there is no appropriate recommendation to make on this aspect of the complaint as the grant has already been awarded and is being implemented by the successful applicant, which has acquired rights under the grant agreement. The Ombudsman will make a suggestion with a view to preventing a similar situation occurring in the future. 

Conclusions

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following findings:

There was maladministration by the Commission in failing to ask for clarification and to correct the complainant’s obvious clerical error.

The Commission’s failure to adequately assess the allegations of the complainant on a potential conflict of interest amounts to maladministration.

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

Suggestions for improvement

If the Commission identifies an obvious clerical error in an application submitted in the context of a call for proposals, it should comply with its own guidelines and request clarification and/or rectify the error, to avoid the rejection of a good quality application on purely formal grounds.

The Commission should make warning messages on the online application system more explicit, to allow applicants to clearly identify issues with their application before submitting it.

In line with the Financial Regulation, the Commission should ensure that, if it becomes aware of a potential conflict of interest in a call for proposals, it adequately investigates the allegations in that regard. This includes assessing whether an expert’s work, which is linked directly or indirectly to a call, conferred an advantage to a grant applicant or distorted competition.

Teresa Anjinho
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 07/11/2025

 

[1] EuropeAid/176172/DD/ACT/Multi “Support the Harmonization of pan-African Electoral Capacities.”: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/prospect-details/176172PROSPECTSEN?keywords=EuropeAid%2F176172%2FDD%2FACT%2FMulti

[2] According to the call for proposals for EU funding, the requested EU contribution should be set out as a percentage of the total eligible costs, and may not exceed the maximum percentage allowed.

[3] Section 1.3 of the guidelines provided that “Any grant requested under this call for proposals must not exceed the below maximum percentage of total eligible costs of the action: Maximum percentage 90 % of the total eligible costs of the action (see also Section 2.1.4).”

[4] The checklist provided “13. The requested EU contribution (amount) is equal to or lower than the maximum allowed in section 1.3 of the guidelines.”

[5] Applicable at the time: Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1046/oj/eng; A recast of this Regulation is now available: Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2024 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/1046/oj/eng.

[6] Article 151 of Regulation 2018/1046.

[7] The Commission representatives referred to the Judgment of the Court of 10 October 2013, Ministeriet for Forskning, Innovation og Videregående Uddannelser v Manova A/S, Case C-336/12, paragraph 40: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-336/12&language=EN

[8] Article 151 of Regulation 2018/1046 provides that: “The authorising officer responsible may correct obvious clerical errors in application documents after confirmation of the intended correction by the participant. Where a participant fails to submit evidence or to make statements, the evaluation committee or, where appropriate, the authorising officer responsible shall, except in duly justified cases, ask the participant to provide the missing information or to clarify supporting documents. Such information, clarification or confirmation shall not substantially change application documents.”

[9] Including the Procurement and Grants for European Union external actions - A Practical Guide (PRAG)

Section 6.5.8.2.2: https://wikis.ec.europa.eu/spaces/ExactExternalWiki/pages/152798604/ePRAG and other internal Commission guidance documents.  

[10] In the sheet ‘expected sources of financing’.

[11] Article 151 of Regulation 2018/1046.

[12] Grant award decision published on 12 January 2024.

[13] Grant award decision published on 12 January 2024.

[14] Article 141(1)(c) of Regulation 2018/1046.

[15] This is also reflected in point 2.6.10.1.2 of the PRAG.

[16] Article 137 of Regulation 2018/1046.

[17] See in paragraph 5 of the decision regarding the reply of the Delegation of 2 August 2023.