Dear Mr L.,
On 22 January 1997 you lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman, on behalf of the Agriculture School of the University of Palermo. Your complaint concerned the European Commission's exclusion of your academic Institution from the Inter-university Cooperation Programme.
On 10 March 1997, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. On 2 July 1997 I received the Commission's comments which I forwarded to you on 24 July 1997, with an invitation to make observations if you so wished. I have received no observations from you.
I am writing now to let you know the result of the inquiries that have been made.

BACKGROUND

The complaint
The Agricultural School of the University of Palermo participated in an Inter- university Cooperation Programme (ICP) which allowed its students to pursue part of their studies in another university, normally abroad. This ICP was funded through the European Union's Socrates programme.
On 22 April 1996, the Technical Assistance Office which assists the European Commission in the technical management of the "Socrates and Youth" programmes, addressed a letter to the complainant in which it stated that the participation of the Agricultural School in the ICP could not be continued for the year 1996/97 since no request for renewal had been received within the deadline (1 December 1995). The complainant wrote then to the Commission asking it to re-examine its refusal.
On 12 July 1996, the Technical Assistance Office (TAO) replied stating that the complainant's case had been reconsidered and that the School's programme was eligible for the academic year 1996/97. However, in a further correspondence dated 7 November 1996, the Office explained that a final decision had been taken. After a careful investigation of the case, it concluded that there were insufficient grounds to reconsider funding. Consequently, the final decision had been to withhold funding from ICP -1- 1159/01, for Action 1 and Action 2 grants. It was indicated that a favourable decision would have violated both the principle of responsibility of coordination and of equal treatment of all the applicants.
In his letter to the Ombudsman, Mr L. claimed that:
(a) From the letter of the Commission of 12 July 1996, it could be understood that the ICP was eligible for the year 1996-97, and therefore that the school´s programme could have been renewed;
(b) the final decision of the Commission of November 1996 was in contradiction with the extremely positive tone of the previous letter.
(c) as a result, the Agricultural School had to cancel the exchange programme that it had foreseen for one of its students. Furthermore it had to bear certain expenses due to the fact that one of its students had already moved abroad. They suffered financially as a consequence of this decision.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion
The European Commission's comments on the complaint are in summary the following:
On 18 November 1995, Mr L., on behalf of the Agriculture School of the University of Palermo, informed the Commission that he was the new coordinator of the Inter- university Cooperation Programme (ICP). He sent the signed contract ICP - 1- 1159/01 for academic year 1995-96. The complainant had not mentioned being interested in a renewal of the programme for the following years.
The institution only considers renewing programmes on the basis of application forms that are received from the coordinators of the programmes. In June 1995, all the Heads of the universities involved in the Programme received an ad hoc letter with a call for interest for renewal for the year 1996-97 to be presented before 1 December 1995. The Commission stressed that the complainant should have known the deadline, in view of the fact that the University of Palermo had participated in the Programme for the last five years.
Following the request of the complainant to reconsider the decision, the Commission agreed to explore possible options, including the possibility to renew the programme in the course of a review procedure that normally take place every year in October. This re-examination was made in order to take into account the specific circumstances of the case.
As for the favourable tone of the letter of 12 July 1996 from the SOCRATES's Technical Assistance Office to the complainant, the Commission underlined that it was formulated taking into account the possibilities of a further reconsideration. However, it recognized that the wording of the letter was more positive than it should have been as regards the probability of granting scholarships to travelling students(1).
The Commission explained that no authorization to send students abroad had been given by the Italian Agency in charge of the programme to the university of Palermo, as would have been necessary. To avoid situations in which students have to suffer the consequences of maladministration by the organising committee, the Commission decided to request that the Italian Agency grant the necessary money to the student who had already moved abroad.
The complainant's observations
I forwarded the Commission's comments to the complainant with an invitation to make observations. I have received no observations from him.

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN

On the basis of the information provided by the complainant and the observations submitted by the European Commission, the Ombudsman has reached the following conclusions:
Failure to renew the Programme
1.1 The conditions governing the development of the Socrates programme were contained in the "Miniguide 1 on transitional measures for 1995 and 1996". This brochure stated that the renewal of programmes could only be done on the basis of application forms to be presented before 1 of December 1995.
Even though the complainant had received this brochure from the Commission in August 1995, no request for the renewal of its programme had been introduced by the complainant within the established deadline.
1.2 The Commission acted therefore in accordance with the rules governing the programme when it decided not to fund the complainant's request. Furthermore, it appears that the institution explained the reasons which justified this decision. The Ombudsman therefore finds that there is no evidence of maladministration in this aspect of the case.
Expectations raised by the Commission's reply
2.1 The letter sent to the complainant on 12 July 1996 by the Socrates's Technical Assistance Office stated that:

"I am happy to inform you that your case has been reconsidered and that the flows of your ICP - 96 - I - 1159/01 are eligible for the academic year 1996/97. We shall inform the National Agencies involved that they may fund students from your ICP from the national grants they received from the Commission for 1996/97."

In light of the positive tone of the letter, the complainant could have reasonably expected that the Commission have taken a favourable decision to fund the school's programme.
2.2 Since the Commission has recognized that the formulation of its letter of 12 July 1996 was too positive, and apologized for the potential misunderstandings which the letter could have created, the Ombudsman therefore finds that there are not grounds to further pursue this part of the case.
Recovery of the expenses
3.1 The main problem posed by the non-renewal of the programme was the recovery of expenses incurred by the student of the School of Agriculture of Palermo who moved to the University of Nottingham to pursue his studies.
3.2 In order to avoid situations in which students have to suffer the negative consequence of maladministration of the organising committee, the Commission agreed to request the competent Italian Agency to cover the expenses payed by this student.
3.3 In view of this fact, the Ombudsman notes that the institution has taken steps in order to settle the problem to the satisfaction of the complainant.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint and of the information contained in the Commission's comments and that supplied by the complainant, the Ombudsman concludes that the case has been settled by the European Commission.
Against this background, the European Ombudsman decides therefore to close the case.
The President of the European Commission will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely,
Jacob SÖDERMAN

---

(1) "I am happy to inform you that your case has been reconsidered and that the flows of your ICP - 96 - I - 1159/01 are eligible for the academic year 1996/97. We shall inform the National Agencies involved that they may fund students from your ICP from the national grants they received from the Commission for 1996/97"