The background to the complaint

1. The complaint concerns (a) the evaluation and rejection of a scientific proposal made in response to a call for proposals under the 7th EC Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities and (b) the subsequent rejection of a request for redress.

2. On 18 August 2009, the complainant submitted a proposal[1] for a Marie Curie Intra-European fellowship for Career Development in the framework of the Call for proposals "FP7-PEOPLE-2009-IEF" (part of the 7th Framework Programme). The Call for proposals was managed by the Research Executive Agency (hereinafter 'the Agency')[2].

3. A panel of independent experts was invited by the Agency to assist in the evaluation of the proposals received in answer to that call. By letter of 25 November 2009, the Agency stated that the proposal had been evaluated by the expert evaluators and had obtained a total mark of 74.20 out of 100 (the threshold being 70 out of 100). The Evaluation Summary Report enclosed with the letter contained, next to the marks for the five evaluation criteria, comments on the evaluation of the proposal, which were subdivided into "strengths" and "weaknesses". In its letter, the Agency stated that, on the basis of the evaluation by the independent experts, the Commission would rank, in priority order, the proposals that passed the thresholds and would then take a decision on the list of proposals to be retained. The Agency pointed out that funds would be available for 575 out of the 1 857 projects (of the 2 398 submitted in total), which passed the threshold.

4. The Agency stated that it would take a formal decision in due course on the complainant's proposal. It further pointed out that, in the event that applicants were not satisfied with the outcome of the evaluation of their proposal and wished to use the redress procedure, a request had to be made by 25 December 2009. The letter contained a note entitled "About the redress procedure", which stated that the redress procedure would deal with how an applicant's proposal had been handled in the evaluation and eligibility-checking process and that it was not an automatic re-evaluation.

5. On 22 December 2009, the Agency informed applicants of the final status of their proposals. The complainant's proposal was ranked in category "C" which corresponded to "Proposals above thresholds but not retained for funding nor on the reserve list because of lack of budgetary resources". The overall statistics showed that there were 1 108 proposals in this category, while 575 proposals were recommended for funding (category "A") and 174 proposals were put on the reserve list (category "B").

6. According to the complainant, it was clear from the Evaluation Summary Report of his proposal, that the evaluators did not understand his proposal. The complainant therefore decided that a request for redress should be made. This request was submitted on 23 December 2009 and included a request for the re-evaluation of the sections of the Report dealing with the assessment of the proposal under criterion 1 (Scientific and Technological Quality) and criterion 5 (Impact).

7. On 21 January 2010, the European Commission's Directorate-General Research (DG RTD) acknowledged receipt of the request for redress and indicated that a reply would be sent by early April 2010.

8. On 28 April 2010, following an enquiry from the complainant into the absence of a reply, DG RTD informed him that a reply would be sent "in the following weeks". On 10 and 15 June 2010, the complainant again wrote to DG RTD and to the Agency complaining about the delay in sending the reply. The complainant also asked whether it would be possible to indicate the thresholds for being ranked in categories A and B. On 16 June 2010, the Agency informed the complainant that it would send the reply very shortly.

9. On 23 June 2010, the Director of the Agency informed the coordinator of the complainant's project that the request for re-evaluation had been rejected. The Director explained that the proposal had been reviewed by an internal evaluation review committee (the "redress committee"), whose role is to consider whether there has been a failing in the evaluation process that is likely to jeopardise the decision whether or not to fund the proposal. He pointed out that the redress committee does not evaluate the proposal itself, nor call into question the scientific judgment of appropriately qualified experts. The Director pointed out that the redress committee had concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the complainant's request for redress and that the initial evaluation result thus stood. A copy of the summary case report of the redress committee was enclosed. It referred to the fact that, on 26 March and on 5 and 6 May 2010, the redress committee for that call for proposals met and decided that there were no grounds to support the complainant's request for redress. It further mentioned that the redress committee had examined the profiles of the experts involved in evaluating the complainant's proposal and concluded that the panel, as a whole, had the appropriate expertise to judge the proposal according to the evaluation criteria. It further mentioned that the redress committee confirmed that the evaluation of the complainant's proposal had been carried out in a fair and transparent manner, fully respecting the established evaluation procedures.

10. On 1 November 2010, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The subject matter of the inquiry

11. The Ombudsman decided to open the present inquiry into the following allegations:

Allegations:

1) The complainant's request for reassessment, submitted via his coordinator, was rejected merely on the ground that the experts'/evaluators' judgment could not be called into question ("referees are infallible" in the complainant's terms).

2) There was unnecessary delay in the sending of (i) the acknowledgement of receipt of the request for redress and (ii) the final reply.

3) The Commission was wrong not to release certain information concerning the evaluation by the sub-panels, namely, the highest and lowest points in each of the rankings A, B, and C.

12. Given that the complainant had indicated that his complaint was against the Commission, and considering the important role played by the Commission in this context, the Ombudsman sent his request for an opinion in this case to the Commission. The opinion was, however, submitted by the Agency. In his observations, the complainant states that he believes that the Commission is the appropriate body to respond in this case. In accordance, however, with his normal practice in cases involving Executive Agencies, the Ombudsman understands this case to concern primarily the Agency. In light of the role played by the Commission, however, a copy of the decision in this case will also be sent to the President of the Commission.

13. In his observations on the Agency's opinion concerning the alleged delay that was incurred in this case, the complainant refers to the fact that the Agency excuses its late response by invoking an unusually high number of requests for redress. Arguing that this is a clear indication that the Commission has a problem with the quality of its experts, the complainant informs the Ombudsman that he would like to know the number of redress requests per panel and the success rate of the redress requests (per panel and overall).

14. The Ombudsman notes that the complainant's request in fact constitutes a separate allegation, namely, that the Commission does not use experts of sufficient quality. That allegation falls outside the scope of the present inquiry. He also notes that he does not find it necessary, for purposes of the present inquiry, to seek information on this question. He notes that, if the complainant would like to obtain information in this regard, he should turn to the Agency.

15. The complainant states, in his observations, that he would like to know the thresholds for the IEF 2010. The present inquiry, however, only concerns IEF 2009. The Ombudsman notes that this issue has been taken up for inquiry in case 2111/2011/RA (see footnote 1 above).

The inquiry

16. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into this case on 30 November 2010. On 6 May 2011, the Agency sent its opinion, which was forwarded to the complainant with an invitation to submit observations. The complainant submitted observations on 2 June 2011 and sent further observations to the Ombudsman on 31 January 2012.

The Ombudsman's analysis and conclusions

A. Allegation that the request for re-assessment was wrongly rejected

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

17. The complainant insists that his request for redress was rejected on the ground that "referees are infallible". In his view, this implies that it is possible to abuse the system without any consequences. He wonders why no proper systems are in place allowing for a proper re-evaluation which would also deal with potential misevaluations or wrongdoing by evaluators. The complainant has the impression that the EU relies utterly on evaluators to distribute millions of Euros without allowing feedback or a second opinion. Finally, in light of what he calls the "poor response" to his request for redress, he wonders why three meetings were necessary to discuss it and what was said about the re-evaluation in those meetings.

18. According to the Agency, the complainant was fully aware of the nature of the redress procedure which is clearly set out in the information letter he received. It underlined that it is the handling of the evaluation and the eligibility- checking process which is checked and pointed out that there is no automatic re-evaluation of proposals. The Agency considers that it performed the redress procedure in compliance with the specific procedural requirements and that there is no evidence to support the need for a re-evaluation of the proposal.

19. Specifically, with regard to the redress procedure, the Agency refers to the Commission Decision on the "Rules for submission of proposals and the related evaluation, selection and award procedures"[3] (hereinafter "the Rules"), whichexplains how applicants' requests for redress will be handled by the redress committee. This Decision is further implemented in the Agency through internal guidelines on the FP7 redress procedure for proposal evaluation and proposal eligibility check. According to Point 8 of the internal guidelines, the redress committee can only consider complaints which relate to shortcomings in the handling of proposal evaluation. The redress committee will not discuss or call into question the judgment of appropriately qualified experts and it will not evaluate the proposal itself, said the Agency. This does not mean that a proposal will never be re-evaluated, however. In some circumstances, referred to in the internal guidelines, the Committee may recommend a re-evaluation of all or part of the proposal "where there is evidence to support the complaint and a serious problem in the conduct of the evaluation of the proposal, and that this problem is likely to have had a negative impact on the decision ("jeopardised") whether or not to fund it".

20. In examining the request for redress in the case at hand, the redress committee referred to the relevant documentation relating to the call and to the evaluation. These documents are listed in the summary case report of the redress committee as follows: the complaint, the proposal, the Evaluation Summary Report, the Evaluators' CVs, the explanatory note drafted by the Agency's Project Officer, the guide for applicants for the call, and the 2009 work programme of the People Specific Programme.

21. The Agency further underlined the finding of the redress committee, according to which "[t]he Committee has examined the profiles of the experts involved in the evaluation of this specific proposal and has concluded that the panel as a whole had the appropriate expertise to judge the proposal according to the evaluation criteria". The redress committee also confirmed that the evaluation was carried out in a fair and transparent manner, fully respecting the established evaluation procedures.

22. The Agency concludes by saying that all these elements were carefully taken into consideration by the redress committee when deciding that there was inadequate evidence to support the request for redress.

23. Referring to the statement by the Agency that "[t]he committee will not call into question the judgement of appropriately qualified groups of experts", the complainant, in his observations, insists that this means that the Agency considers its group of experts to be infallible. The assumed infallibility of these experts leads to non-transparent and unfair outcomes with potential damage to applicants and to the European taxpayer. The complainant insists that the experts' comments show that they did not understand his proposal and that this had a negative impact on the decision whether or not to fund his proposal.

24. In response to the Agency's argument that the experts who evaluated the complainant's proposal were qualified to do so, the complainant argues that, if this were true, it would imply that they deliberately evaluated his proposal incorrectly and followed their own agenda. He insists, however, that the experts were not qualified to evaluate his proposal properly. Having obtained a list of the "so-called" experts, the complainant contends that there were, amongst the experts, no world class or even second class experts from his research area. On this basis, he argues that the experts were not sufficiently qualified to evaluate his proposal. He reiterates this argument in his further observations, where, on the basis of an article co-authored by the experts, he takes the view that the approach espoused in his proposal is superior to that espoused by the experts.

The Ombudsman's assessment

25. The Ombudsman notes that, when finding grounds to open the present inquiry, he took due account of the complainant's argument that there should at least be a "possibility" of a further substantive assessment when a decision on a grant application is contested. The Ombudsman, however, also notes that, in his decision in case 1793/2009/(JMA)MHZ, which also concerned the rejection of a proposal submitted in the framework of a Call for Proposals under the 7th Framework Programme, and in which the complainant's allegation essentially was that the evaluation of the proposal was substantively wrong, the Ombudsman pointed out that the evaluation of research proposals raises complex scientific issues and that his review should therefore normally be limited to assessing whether there is a manifest error in the reasoning of the contested decision. The Ombudsman also underlined that this approach is in line with the standard applied by the Union courts[4].

26. The Ombudsman notes that Section 5.3 of the Rules entitled "Assistance, enquiries and redress" reads as follows:

"(...)

The [initial information letter] will also provide an address to be used if the coordinator believes there have been shortcomings in the handling of his or her proposal, and that these shortcomings have jeopardised the outcome of the evaluation process. (...) The coordinator should provide the name and identifier of the call, the number (if any), name and acronym of the proposal, and a full description of the alleged shortcomings. (...).

An internal evaluation review committee (“redress committee”) will then be convened to examine those cases that have been submitted by coordinators, before the deadline mentioned above, using the method described in the initial information letter. Complaints that do not meet these conditions, or do not deal with the evaluation or eligibility checking of a specific proposal, will not be considered.

The committee may meet in different configurations, according to the calls under consideration. The committee’s role is to ensure a coherent legal interpretation of such requests and equal treatment of applicants. It provides specialist opinions on the implementation of the evaluation process on the basis of all the available information related to the proposal and its evaluation. It works independently. The committee itself does not evaluate the proposal. If the committee considers that there has been a failing in the eligibility checking or evaluation process that is likely to have jeopardised the decision whether or not to fund the proposal, it may suggest a further evaluation of all or part of the proposal by independent experts. The committee will not call into question the judgement of appropriately qualified groups of experts.

The committee is composed of Commission staff having the requisite expertise in legal and procedural matters, S & T content, and/or information systems, varying according to the cases it is asked to consider. It is chaired by an official from a department other than the one responsible for the call. The call-coordinator (or other designated person from the department responsible for the call) is a member of the committee.

(...)

The redress procedure does not replace the channels applying to all Commission actions, viz: the Secretariat-General of the Commission for breach of the code of good administration (relations with the public); the European Ombudsman for “maladministration”; the European Court of Justice for a decision affecting a person or legal entity. These channels are also available to applicants who wish to register a complaint after the deadline mentioned above."

27. The Ombudsman notes that the procedures outlined above involve two stages, a first stage carried out by the redress committee and, if necessary, a second stage carried out by independent experts.

28. First, the redress committee examines all cases that have been submitted by coordinators. The redress committee examines the alleged shortcomings in the handling of the proposals to see if they have jeopardised the outcome of the evaluation process. In order to do this, the request for redress must contain a full description of the alleged shortcomings. If the redress committee, after examining the alleged shortcomings in the handling of a proposal, finds that there were shortcomings that may have jeopardised the outcome of the evaluation process, it does not itself proceed to re-evaluate the proposal. Any such re-evaluation is only done at Stage 2.

29. If the redress committee considers that there has been a failing in the eligibility checking or evaluation process that is likely to have jeopardised the decision on whether or not to fund the proposal, it will suggest a further evaluation of all or part of the proposal by independent experts (Stage 2 of the procedure).

30. The Ombudsman understands that this two stage approach is intended to avoid a situation in which each and every applicant who is disappointed with the news that his/her proposal has not been awarded funding appeals the decision in order to obtain, automatically, a second opinion. The Ombudsman finds this approach to be entirely reasonable. This approach means that, when the redress committee deems it to be appropriate, proposals can be re-evaluated[5].

31. The Ombudsman can identify three grounds that would give rise to a full re-evaluation: (i) if an applicant puts forward evidence of procedural errors, for example, if it is clear that a step in the procedure has been overlooked; (ii) if an applicant puts forward evidence of factual errors, for example, if the experts refer to the wrong proposal[6]; (iii) if an applicant puts forward evidence of a manifest error of assessment.

32. In the case at hand, the complainant has not provided evidence showing that a procedural or factual error, or a manifest error of assessment, was committed in the evaluation procedure. On the contrary, the complainant's comments show that he simply disagrees with the substantive scientific evaluation of his proposal by the panel. Such evidence is not, in the Ombudsman's view, sufficient to warrant a re-evaluation.

33. With regard to the complainant's arguments concerning potential wrongdoing by evaluators, the Ombudsman refers to the internal guidelines, quoted in paragraph 19 above, according to which the redress committee may recommend a re-evaluation of all or part of the proposal "where there is evidence to support the complaint and a serious problem in the conduct of the evaluation of the proposal, and that this problem is likely to have had a negative impact on the decision ("jeopardised") whether or not to fund it". The Ombudsman understands that, were an applicant to put forward evidence of wrongdoing (which would, come under the definition of a "procedural error"), this could certainly give rise to a reevaluation.

34. It is also clear from the provisions quoted in paragraph 26 above that the work of the evaluators is also subject to review by the Commission's Secretariat-General, as well as by the Ombudsman and the Courts. As far as the Ombudsman is concerned, the standard of review he carries out will not second guess the redress committee, or indeed the evaluators. The evaluation of research proposals raises complex scientific questions. The Ombudsman considers that, in examining allegations of this nature, his review should normally be limited to assessing whether there is a manifest error in the reasoning of the contested decision. The Ombudsman notes that this approach is in line with the standard applied by the Union courts[7].

35. In light of the above, the Ombudsman finds no instance of maladministration corresponding to the complainant's allegation. Notwithstanding this conclusion, and in light of the statement in paragraph 34 concerning the standard of review he will apply when seeking to ascertain whether there has been a manifest error in the reasoning of a contested decision, the Ombudsman finds that the redress committee in the present decision could have provided more detailed information as regards its deliberations. The Ombudsman notes that the Agency has informed him that the redress committee deliberated on the complainant's proposal on three occasions. He also notes, however, that, in its summary case report, the redress committee limits itself to informing the complainant about (i) the documents it consulted; (ii) its conclusion that the panel had the appropriate expertise to judge the proposal and also that the evaluation was carried out in a fair and transparent manner, fully respecting the relevant procedures; and (iii) its overall conclusion that the complainant put forward "inadequate evidence" to support his complaint. The Ombudsman finds that the Agency could have provided more detailed explanations to the complainant[8]. Accordingly, he makes a further remark in this regard below.

B. Allegation of delay

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

36. The complainant alleges that there was unnecessary delay in sending him (i) the acknowledgement of receipt of the request for redress and (ii) the final reply. He points out that it took a full month to get an acknowledgement of receipt, and half a year to obtain the answer to his redress request. He states that he would expect to obtain the result of his redress request within one month and the outcome of an eventual re-evaluation within three months.

37. In its opinion on the complaint, the Agency provides the following information. Concerning point (i), Section 5.3 of the Rules provide that an initial reply will be sent to complainants no later than three weeks after the deadline for redress requests. In the case at hand, the deadline for redress requests was 25 December 2009. The acknowledgement of receipt was sent to the complainant by the Commission on 21 January 2010, that is, four calendar weeks later, but still within the 15 working day time limit laid down in the Commission's Code of good administrative behaviour. The Agency explains that the delay in this case was due to the Christmas holiday period and the exceptionally high number of complaints (177) for which holding replies had to be prepared. In this latter regard, the Agency further points out that the exceptionally high number of redress requests corresponded to an increase in the number of proposals submitted in response to the three calls for individual fellowships (an increase of 40% compared to 2008, it says). Concerning point (ii), the Agency says that it is correct that it gave the final reply on 23 June 2010, despite the fact that the initial reply of 21 January 2010 indicated that the final reply could be expected by early April 2010.

38. More generally, the Agency acknowledges that the redress procedure gave rise to delays. It regrets the fact that such delays were largely unavoidable, given that there are strict procedures to be followed, with each step in the process taking a minimum amount of time to be carried out correctly, and that there was a high number of redress requests. The Agency mentions that it has, however, already taken steps to establish a supplementary redress committee to mitigate this problem in the future. Based on its experience of the heavy workload of the redress committee, the Director of the Agency has now established an additional redress committee with a view to ensuring faster processing of redress requests in the future.

39. The complainant expresses his disagreement with the Agency's opinion on this point. If, due to holidays, the Agency is not able to confirm that it has received a redress request within a week, it should move the deadline accordingly, he says. Moreover, he argues that the three week deadline stipulated in the Rules is unacceptable. Furthermore, as the redress committee simply considers whether or not to accept a request for redress, it should be able to do this within a month of the submission of the request. In the event that a request for redress leads to the re-evaluation of a proposal, the whole procedure should not take more time than the original evaluation procedure, he says.

The Ombudsman's assessment

40. The Ombudsman recalls that the complainant's allegation was that there was an unnecessary delay in sending him (i) the acknowledgement of receipt of the request for redress and (ii) the final reply. The Ombudsman will examine these two issues in turn.

41. With regard to (i), the Rules stipulate a deadline of three weeks for sending the initial reply responding to redress requests. The said deadline dates from the final date for submitting the redress requests. The complainant argues that this is excessive. The Ombudsman notes that Article 14 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour provides that every letter or complaint shall receive an acknowledgement of receipt within a period of two weeks. The Agency, however, quotes the Commission's Code which lays down a 15 working day time limit. The Ombudsman is not convinced that three weeks or 15 working days are necessary in order to send an acknowledgment of receipt. In any case, the Agency failed to meet this deadline.

42. The reason put forward by the Agency was the high number of redress requests. Given that an acknowledgment of receipt consists of a standardised letter, the number of such requests should normally not give rise to a delay. The Ombudsman is conscious, however, that the period here at issue was the Christmas holiday period. He finds that it would have been in accordance with principles of good administration to explain to candidates seeking redress why the acknowledgment of receipt in question was delayed. He will make a further remark in this regard.

43. With regard to (ii), the Ombudsman notes that the Rules do not provide for any deadline within which the substantive response to a redress procedure must be finalised. In its acknowledgment of receipt in this case, the Commission informed the complainant that he could expect a reply within three months. The Ombudsman therefore has to analyse whether the time taken to deal with the complainant's redress request could, in general, be regarded as excessive, taking into account the circumstances of the case.

44. The Ombudsman notes that Article 17 (Reasonable time-limit for taking decisions) of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour provides that:

"1. The official shall ensure that a decision on every request or complaint to the Institution is taken within a reasonable time-limit, without delay, and in any case no later than two months from the date of receipt. The same rule shall apply for answering letters from members of the public and for answers to administrative notes which the official has sent to his superiors requesting instructions regarding the decisions to be taken.

2. If a request or a complaint to the Institution cannot, because of the complexity of the matters which it raises, be decided upon within the above mentioned time-limit, the official shall inform the author thereof as soon as possible. In that case, a definitive decision should be notified to the author in the shortest time."

45. In the present case, the complainant submitted his redress request on 24 December 2010, while the results of the re-evaluation were sent to him on 23 June 2011, namely, six months later. This is well beyond the two-month time limit provided for in the above-quoted Article of the Code.

46. However, the Ombudsman notes that the complexity of the matter in question can justify a longer period of time. In this regard, the Agency explained that the delay in dealing with the complainant's redress request was due to the fact that (i) it had to follow strict procedures and most of the steps in these procedures took an unavoidable minimum amount of time; (ii) the redress committee had to examine 177 requests for redress in total. He notes that the Agency also expressed regret for the delays incurred.

47. In light of the above circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that the delay in dealing with the complainant's redress request cannot be considered as manifestly excessive in the present case. Consequently, the Ombudsman finds no instance of maladministration corresponding to the complainant's allegation.

48. In addition, the Ombudsman notes that the Agency has adopted measures to avoid delays in future. In order to determine the effectiveness of these measures, the Ombudsman makes a further remark below[9].

C. Allegation that the Commission was wrong not to release certain information concerning the evaluation by the sub-panels

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

49. The complainant alleges that the Commission was wrong not to release certain information concerning the evaluation made by the sub-panels, namely, the highest and lowest points in each of the rankings A, B, and C.

50. In its opinion, the Agency first states that this information is not published, since the ranking itself is an internal Commission process which follows strict, established rules. More specifically, after evaluation, all proposals are ranked according to their total score within the topical sub-panel specified in the work programme. The ranking is verified and approved by the expert evaluators. It should also be noted, it said, that the success rates in all sub-panels are the same, as the allocation of funds to sub-panels is made according to the number of proposals submitted to each sub-panel (see work programme 2009, p. 7).

51. As stated in Article 15.3 of Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council[10], "[p]roposals shall be ranked according to the evaluation results. Funding decisions shall be made on the basis of this ranking". The ranking for proposals in categories A and B is published on the CORDIS website[11].

52. The Agency goes on to say that the complainant's email request of 10 June 2010 for the release of the threshold marks for being included in ranking categories A and B was overlooked in the subsequent exchange of correspondence with him. Following consultation with the Commission, the Agency agreed to disclose the following information to the complainant: the highest and the lowest points in each of the rankings A, B and C were: in category A highest score 90.7 lowest 83.6; in category B highest score 83.5 lowest 82.2; in category C highest score 81.8 lowest 70.3.

53. In his observations, the complainant states that he does not understand on which grounds the Commission/ Agency grants him the requested information now, as they have changed their opinion on this matter[12].

The Ombudsman's assessment

54. The Ombudsman notes that the Agency has now provided the complainant with the information he requested. He finds that there are no grounds for further inquiries into this issue in the context of the current inquiry.

C. Conclusions

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

As far as the first and second allegations are concerned, there was no maladministration by the Agency.

As far as the third allegation is concerned, there are no grounds for further inquiries.

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

Further remarks

In responding to requests for redress, the redress committee should endeavour to provide more detailed reasons when explaining why a request does not lead to a re-evaluation.

The Agency should endeavour to send out an acknowledgment of receipt as quickly as possible, and, at the latest, within the three week deadline stipulated in the Rules. Where it fails to meet this deadline, it should apologise and provide explanations.

In order to obtain concrete information to support the Agency's commitments relating to the future duration of its redress procedures, the Ombudsman would be grateful if the Agency could inform him of the average length of its subsequent redress procedures in similar cases concerning Intra-European Fellowships.

 

P. Nikiforos Diamandouros

Done in Strasbourg on 9 July 2012

---

[1] The complainant submitted a revised version of his proposal in response to the 2010 Call for Proposals. The Ombudsman is currently investigating a complaint from the same complainant concerning his 2010 proposal (Case 2111/2011/RA - Confidential). In particular, the complainant alleges that (i) the redress committee failed to carry out a proper review of the evaluation of his proposal, (ii) the Research Executive Agency wrongly refused to make public the highest and lowest points needed for categories A, B and C in the Intra-European Fellowship (IEF) 2010, and (iii) the Agency wrongly refused to make public the names of the evaluators of his IEF 2009 and IEF 2010 proposals.

[2] The Research Executive Agency is a funding body created by the European Commission to foster excellence in research and innovation. It manages large parts of the Seventh Framework Programme. As an executive agency, it focuses on management tasks outsourced by the Commission and fosters efficiency when addressing the research community's needs. Autonomous since 15 June 2009, the Agency was set up in 2007 in Brussels for the lifetime of the Seventh Framework Programme.

[3] The Commission rules covering the evaluation process (Rules for submission of proposals, and the related evaluation, selection and award procedures, Version 3, 21 August 2008 COM (2008) 4617). The Ombudsman notes that these rules were replaced by Version 4, adopted by Commission Decision of 28 February 2011; OJ 2011 L 75, p.1.

[4] See the decision of the European Ombudsman in case 1793/2009/(JMA)MHZ, paragraph 21.

[5] It is important to distinguish between the review of a proposal (which is carried out by the redress committee and which is the stage of the procedure at issue in this case) and reevaluation, which is carried out by independent experts. As outlined in paragraph 26 above, "[t]he [redress] committee itself, however, does not evaluate the proposal".

[6] The Ombudsman notes, for example, that in case 705/2009/DK concerning the European Research Council, the Commission stated that the redress committee discovered that a factual mistake had been made during the preparation of the Evaluation Report of the complainant's proposal. The Commission therefore decided that the complainant's proposal should be re-evaluated and reconsidered. The mistake consisted of the wrong project being referred to at one stage of the Report. While the grade sheet of the Evaluation Report indicated the correct name of the project, the comments of the panel and of the reviewers on the Evaluation Report referred to another project.

[7] See Case T-13/99 Pfizer Animal Heath SA v Council [1999] ECR-II-1961, paragraph 169.

[8] The Ombudsman notes that, in response to the complainant's request for redress concerning his 2010 proposal, the redress committee endeavours to provide him with more detailed explanations.

[9] The Ombudsman made a corresponding further remark in his decision concerning case 705/2009/DK against the European Research Council.

[10] Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in actions under the Seventh Framework Programme and for the dissemination of research results (2007-2013), OJ 2006 L 391, p. 1.

[11] See ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp7/docs/calls/people/m-grantagreement-status-200905_en.pdf See also relevant updates.

[12] See footnote 1 above.