Background to the complaint

1. The complainant is a researcher, who was selected under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Individual Fellowships Programme^[1] to carry out research at a university in Italy. This fellowship programme contains a ‘mobility criterion’^[2] that requires the researcher to move to the country where the participating research institute is located for the duration of the research project.

2. The Research Executive Agency (REA)^[3] signed a grant agreement with the university in March 2018. The complainant was to sign a separate contract of employment with the university to carry out the research for the project.^[4] The research project was to start on 1 January 2019.

3. Two months before the start of the project, the complainant was diagnosed with a severe chronic illness that required special medical treatment and could lead to a disability. The complainant was living in Croatia at the time. Given the new circumstances, he informed both the university and the REA immediately of his condition, and asked them to take steps to ensure he could carry out the project, while continuing to receive medical treatment.

4. The university asked the REA to postpone the start of the project for two months. The REA agreed but noted that it was possible to postpone only until September 2019 (the deadline for the next call for proposals under the programme). The REA stated that the project would have to be suspended if the complainant went on sick leave for more than 30 days. It added that the project could not be suspended for more than 30% of the total foreseen duration without affecting the envisaged funding (so-called ‘pre-financing’).

5. In January 2019, the university asked the REA about the possibility of transferring the project to another research institute in the complainant’s country of residence. It also requested that the project be postponed again. The REA replied that, under the terms of the grant agreement, it was not possible to transfer the project^[5], because “personal reasons [...] are not considered valid grounds for transferring the [grant agreement]”. However, it agreed to postpone the project until September 2019.

6. In May 2019, the complainant requested that the REA reconsider its position on the possibility of transferring the project to a different research institute. He noted that, since the applicable rules require exclusive commitment to the project, he was unemployed while waiting to sign a contract of employment. This had left him in a precarious situation regarding his health insurance.

7. In June 2019, the REA declined the complainant’s request, saying that a transfer was not possible under the rules applying to the grant agreement. It had already postponed the start date beyond the limit set out in the grant agreement. It could not accept his request to transfer the project to a new research institute and then allow him to go on sick leave immediately.

8. The REA pointed out that one of the purposes of the fellowship programme was to allow researchers to gain experience in another EU country. Consequently, the research institute with the grant agreement must host the researcher on its premises. ^[6] While cross-border work is possible, this applied in principle only to daily commuting. The REA suggested that the complainant discuss such arrangements with the university directly.

9. In a further reply, the REA noted that any amendments to the grant agreement, such as the possibility of working part time, suspending the project or transferring the grant agreement, needed to be made by the university. Regarding the transfer, if the university considered that there were “serious reasons affecting its capacity to implement” the project, including if “it cannot offer necessary infrastructure or arrangements to accommodate the researcher”^[7], it could request that the grant agreement be transferred to another research institute.

10. The REA finally agreed to postpone the project due to the exceptional circumstances related to the complainant’s health issues.

11. Dissatisfied how the REA had handled his situation, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in September 2019.

The inquiry

12. The Ombudsman’s inquiry looked into how the REA handled the complainant’s request to accommodate his needs, so that he could work on the research project while receiving treatment.

13. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman’s inquiry team met with the REA’s representatives and inspected its file on this case. Subsequently, the Ombudsman received the complainant’s comments in response to the inspection meeting report and further information from the REA.

Inspection meeting and proposal for a solution

14. During the inspection meeting in November 2019, the REA stated that its understanding of the situation had evolved with the additional information received in the course of the correspondence with the complainant and the university. Initially, it was not clear that the situation would have consequences for the implementation of the project. While the university had asked about the possibility of transferring the research project due to medical reasons, it made no explicit request for a transfer.

15. The REA outlined the rules and procedures for transferring grant agreements to another research institute. It clarified that, if the university could no longer accommodate the complainant, and this would make it difficult to carry out the project, the university could request that the grant agreement be transferred to a different research institute. In principle, personal reasons are not sufficient grounds to justify a transfer.

16. The REA explained that it had never dealt with such a situation before. It also accepted that some of its replies might have led to misunderstanding. It therefore offered to apologise to the complainant.

17. The inspection meeting led the REA to agree to a solution, by which it would pre-approve the transfer of the project to another research institute. It also agreed to approve the university’s request to suspend the project for another two months, starting from 1 December 2019.

18. The complainant welcomed the proposal to transfer the project. However, he raised concerns about the delay. He also criticised lack of clarity in the REA’s earlier responses. He claimed that the REA should not have opposed his request in the first place, and considered that this amounted to discrimination due to his medical condition.

19. In March 2020, the REA informed the Ombudsman that, in February, it had transferred the grant agreement to a research institute close to the complainant’s place of residence. The REA had also amended the grant agreement to allow the complainant to work part time.

The Ombudsman's assessment

20. The REA could, at an earlier stage, have handled this case in a more sensitive manner. Poor communication led to regrettable misunderstandings and an avoidable delay.

21. However, this poor communication was, in part due to the involvement of three different parties. Furthermore, this case concerned an exceptional situation that the REA had not encountered previously. As such, the Ombudsman is satisfied with the steps taken by the REA to find a solution to the problem.

22. The REA agreed to transfer the project to another research institute and approved the complainant’s request for part-time work. It also expressed its regret for any confusion and misunderstanding.^[8]

23. The Ombudsman trusts that this will allow the complainant to continue his medical treatment, while working on the research project.

24. In light of the above, the Ombudsman has decided to close the case because a solution has been found.

Conclusion

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

A solution to this case has been found.

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

 

Emily O'Reilly

European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 26/03/2020

 

[1] This type of fellowship is offered to experienced researchers, who wish to move and work abroad during the funded project: https://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/actions/individual-fellowships_en.  

[2] Mobility is a key requirement in the Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions. Researchers receive funding on the condition that they move from one country to another to broaden or deepen their competences: https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2016_2017/main/h2020-wp1617-msca_en.pdf.

[3] The Research Executive Agency was set up by the European Commission to manage EU funding programmes in the area of research and innovation: https://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/research-executive-agency_en.

[4] Under article 32 of the grant agreement.

[5] The REA said that “from the legal point of view, the transfer of the grant to Croatia was not an option”. It further referred to article 56(a)(1) of the grant agreement, which stipulates the conditions under which a grant agreement can be transferred:

“The beneficiary may request that the research training activities are transferred to a new beneficiary,

if there are serious reasons affecting its capacity to implement the action (without being entitled to any additional EU funding for doing so).”

[6] The REA had to ensure equal treatment of all participants in this regard.

[7] The REA noted that in this case “special infrastructure/arrangements may be needed because of the health issues of the researcher”.

[8] By e-mail of 5 December 2019.