The background to the complaint

1. The complaint concerns the conditions of eligibility for the EU Scholarship Programme for Turkish Cypriots for the academic year 2010/2011 (hereinafter, 'the EU Scholarship Programme') and whether a Commission publication contained misleading information about the possibility of also applying for other scholarships at the same time.

2. The complainant is a member of the Turkish Cypriot community of Northern Cyprus. She was studying at the University of New Hampshire, USA, when, in February 2010, she applied to the EU Scholarship Programme. The complainant wished to complete a Master's Programme on Gender and Social Policy at the London School of Economics ('LSE'), to which she had been admitted.

3. In April 2010, interviews with the scholarship applicants took place. The complainant was not invited to attend these interviews.

4. On 15 June 2010, after the complainant repeatedly inquired about the status of her application, the Commission informed her by letter that her application had not obtained the minimum score that was needed to be invited for interview. According to the letter, the complainant obtained an overall score of 35.38, while the minimum score to be invited for interview was 36. The letter also provided a breakdown of the scores obtained by the complainant.

5. On 17 June 2010, the complainant requested certain clarifications from the Commission as regards the assessment of her application. In particular, the complainant asked the Commission to provide reasons for her score relating to the "Relevance" criterion, which was 10.5 out of 35 points.

6. The Commission replied on 29 June 2010. In its reply, it indicated that, as set out in the guidelines for applicants (the 'guidelines'), the Commission established certain priority subjects of study. The Commission informed the complainant that her subject of study was not among the priority subjects. The Commission added that the guidelines also indicated that priority would be given to those applicants who had graduated from, or were studying in, a university in Northern Cyprus. The Commission noted that that was not the applicant’s case.

The subject matter of the inquiry

7. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant essentially submitted the following allegation and the following claim, which were included in the Ombudsman’s inquiry:

Allegation:

The Commission acted unreasonably by not allowing the complainant to make applications for alternative funding while her application for funding from the Commission was ongoing.

Claim:

The Commission should revise the scholarship application form to permit applications to other sources of funding.

The inquiry

8. The present complaint was submitted by fax registered on 15 July 2010 and by letter received on 21 July 2010.

9. On 7 September 2010, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the allegation and the claim and asked the Commission to provide an opinion.

10. On the same date, the Ombudsman informed the complainant that certain aspects of her complaint would not be investigated.

11. First, the complainant alleged that the Commission acted in a discriminatory and unfair way by not awarding her a scholarship. As regards this allegation, the Ombudsman noted that the Commission had a broad margin of discretion when choosing priority areas. The Ombudsman considered that there were insufficient indications that the Commission might have exceeded the limits of its discretion when it decided to give priority to students who had not yet studied abroad and to students who studied certain subjects. In view of this, the Ombudsman concluded that there were insufficient grounds to open an inquiry into this aspect of the complaint.

12. Second, the complainant alleged that the Commission failed to inform her in a timely manner of the outcome of the competition, which resulted in her missing out on opportunities to apply for alternative sources of funding. It appeared from the complaint that the complainant applied in mid-February 2010 and that the deadline to submit applications was 25 February 2010. Moreover, according to the indicative timetable established in the guidelines for applicants, the Commission would notify the applicants of the results in May/June 2010. Although the Commission only replied to an e-mail from the complainant inquiring about the status of her application after two months (i.e. on 15 June 2010), the Ombudsman concluded that there were insufficient grounds to investigate the above-mentioned allegation.

13. Third, the complainant claimed that the Commission should provide her with a detailed breakdown of the scores obtained, together with details on how the Evaluation Committee arrived at those scores. In the Ombudsman's view, in its letters of 15 and 29 June 2010, the Commission had already provided sufficient explanations to the complainant regarding the breakdown of her scores and details on how the Evaluation Committee arrived at those scores. In particular, it appeared from the Commission's letters that the complainant's scores were broken down into four sections and that the complainant was close to the maximum score in three of them. As regards the "Relevance" section, in which her score was lower, the Commission explained that this was due to the fact that the complainant's field of study was not among the priority subjects and that the complainant had already studied abroad. Therefore, the Ombudsman concluded that there were insufficient grounds to include this claim in his inquiry.

14. On 1 October and 12 October 2011, the Ombudsman received further correspondence from the complainant. In essence, the complainant disagreed with the Ombudsman's decision not to investigate certain aspects of her complaint. The complainant further indicated that the Ombudsman had misinterpreted her claim. In this respect, the complainant claimed that:

(i) the Commission should invite her to attend an interview for the EU Scholarship Programme;

(ii) the Commission should provide alternative funding equivalent to that available under the EU Scholarship Programme; or, alternatively,

(iii) the Commission should adopt any other appropriate compensation measures.

15. On 15 November 2010, the Ombudsman informed the complainant that she had not put forward any convincing arguments to make him question his decision not to include certain aspects of the complaint in his inquiry. In particular, as regards the complainant's contention that the Ombudsman had misinterpreted her claim, the Ombudsman informed her that she had not made any administrative approaches to the Commission in relation to the subject matter of the claims (i) to (iii) listed above. Thus, the Ombudsman considered that these claims were inadmissible. Therefore, he invited the complainant to refer the claims to the Commission first, before eventually turning to the Ombudsman.

16. The Commission provided an opinion on 3 February 2011, which was forwarded to the complainant for her observations on 10 February 2011.

17. The complainant submitted her observations on 10 and 16 March 2011.

The Ombudsman's analysis and conclusions

Allegation that the Commission acted unreasonably by not allowing the complainant to make applications for alternative funding and the related claim

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

18. The complainant argued in her complaint that the Commission established that applicants to the EU Scholarship Programme could not apply for other scholarships. She submitted that this was unreasonable because she was not only refused an EU scholarship, but also prevented from benefitting from other scholarships, since the deadlines for applying for these scholarships had already expired by the time she was informed that her application to the EU Scholarship Programme had been unsuccessful (namely, on 15 June 2010).

19. In its opinion, the Commission explained the reasons why it considered it appropriate that applicants to the EU Scholarship Programme may not benefit from a scholarship from another source. The Commission noted that the Turkish Cypriot community has been isolated from the rest of the international community for most of the last 30 years. Thus, one of the reasons for the condition in question was that, in order to maximise the number of Turkish Cypriots who would be able to gain some experience in the EU, the Commission wished to give priority to those candidates who are not able to receive scholarships from other sources. The Commission submitted that the guidelines for applicants to the EU Scholarship Programme did not prevent candidates from submitting applications for alternative funding. The guidelines merely stipulated that applicants “may not benefit from a scholarship from another source for the proposed programme or period”. Moreover, Part C of the application form requested applicants to answer the following question: "Are you applying for any other scholarships or award to study in the EU, to be funded by other institutions or foundations? (Yes or No) If yes, please give full details". According to the Commission, this did not mean that candidates could not apply for other scholarships, but that, in case a successful applicant to the EU Scholarship Programme had been selected for another scholarship, he/she would have to decide which one they wished to accept.

20. The Commission acknowledged that Annex A of the guidelines listed as one of the eligibility criteria that: "[t]he applicant is not applying for any other scholarship for the proposed programme". It submitted, however, that Annex A was not a form that applicants had to fill in. Therefore, in the Commission’s view, applicants were not requested to confirm that they were not applying for any other scholarship.

21. The Commission added, however, that in case a new call was to be launched for the academic year 2011/2012, it would revise the relevant guidelines for applicants in order to avoid any misinterpretations. In particular, the Commission indicated that the guidelines for applicants would include the following statement: "Applicants are not prevented to apply [sic] at the same time for a scholarship to other sources of funding, nevertheless, if such funding would be granted and accepted by a successful applicant, he/she would not be awarded the EC scholarship grant".

22. In her observations on the Commission’s opinion, the complainant indicated that although the Commission might have taken measures to prevent similar “misinterpretations” in future, she should receive compensation for the harm caused. In particular, the complainant suggested that the misleading information that had been provided by the Commission had prevented her from applying for a scholarship offered by LSE, as she had intended to do in case her application for the EU Scholarship Programme was unsuccessful.

The Ombudsman's assessment

23. The Ombudsman notes that the Commission does not dispute that it would be unreasonable to prevent applicants to the EU Scholarship Programme from simultaneously applying to other scholarship programmes. Instead, the Commission argues that it is reasonable to prevent successful applicants to the EU Scholarship Programme from simultaneously obtaining additional scholarships from other sources. Whilst this aim seems reasonable as such and was not challenged by the complainant, it remains to be examined whether the information provided to the complainant made it sufficiently clear that candidates were not prevented from applying for other scholarships.

24. The Commission argued that the application form and the guidelines provided accurate information, namely, that successful applicants may not benefit from additional scholarships. The Ombudsman agrees that the application form did not contain any statement to suggest that applicants might be prevented from applying for other scholarships. However, regard needs to be had to the fact that applicants were also provided with guidelines issued by the Commission. These guidelines thus also need to be considered here. However, it emerges from Annex A to the guidelines that the question as to whether or not a candidate had also applied for another scholarship formed part of the eligibility criteria. The Ombudsman considers that a candidate was thus likely to be induced to believe that the mere fact of applying for another scholarship would deny him/her the option of applying for an EU scholarship. The wording of this Annex was thus clearly misleading. It is true that the Commission has argued that this Annex was not a form that applicants had to fill in. However, the Ombudsman does not find this argument convincing. First of all, the Commission's argument cannot alter the fact that the relevant text was objectively misleading. Above all, however, it should be recalled that Part C of the application form required applicants to indicate whether they were applying for other scholarships. It should also be stressed that the guidelines were made available to applicants in their entirety; that is to say, including its Annex A. Thus, a prudent applicant, who wished to find out why the Commission wished to be informed about applications for other scholarships, could therefore be expected to study the guidelines for this purpose. Therefore, Annex A was likely to mislead applicants.

25. In view of the above, the Ombudsman welcomes the Commission’s decision to amend the guidelines in order to avoid misleading future applicants. The new wording suggested by the Commission for that purpose will make it clear that applicants to the EU Scholarship Programme are allowed to simultaneously apply for alternative scholarships but that they will be required to renounce such other scholarships if they wish to receive a scholarship under the EU Scholarship Programme. The Ombudsman understands that the complainant agrees that the Commission has thus satisfactorily dealt with the claim that he included in his present inquiry.

26. The Ombudsman notes, however, that, in her observations, the complainant also asked for compensation on the ground that the misleading information that had been provided by the Commission had prevented her from applying for a scholarship offered by LSE.

27. It should be recalled that, in his letter of 15 November 2010, the Ombudsman already informed the complainant that he was unable to deal with a claim for compensation at that time, given that the complainant did not yet appear to have made the appropriate prior administrative approaches to the Commission concerning this issue. There is nothing to suggest that the complainant has submitted her claim for compensation to the Commission since the Ombudsman invited her to do so in his letter of 15 November 2010. The Ombudsman is therefore not yet in a position to deal with this claim. However, the complainant still has the option to submit her claim for compensation to the Commission. She may turn to the Ombudsman again with a new complaint if the Commission fails to provide her with a satisfactory answer within an appropriate period of time.

Conclusion

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

There are no grounds for further inquiries into this case.

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

 

P. Nikiforos Diamandouros

Done in Strasbourg on 24 October 2011