Dear Mr R.,

On 15 February 2000, you lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman concerning the Commission's failure to reply to your letters.

On 25 February 2000, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The European Commission sent its opinion on 19 April 2000 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. I received your observations on 29 May 2000.

I am now writing to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

The French Association Génération Interland participated in a call for proposals IST-99-1-1A under the Key Action IV.3.3 (Methods and Tools for Intelligence and Knowledge sharing) of the programme User-friendly information society (hereafter IST). Génération Interland's application proposed to develop the use of Interlingua (modern Latin) for the internet and for non-literary publications.

Although the application was sent by registered mail on 12 June 1999, Génération Interland neither received an acknowledgement of receipt for its application nor information regarding the outcome of the call for proposals IST-99-1-1A. On 15 February 2000, the complainant, chairman of Génération Interland, therefore lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman and made following allegations:

1. Directorate General XIII of the Commission failed to acknowledge receipt of the complainant's application of 12 June 1999 and to reply to his subsequent reminding letter of 31 December 1999.
2. Directorate General XIII of the Commission failed to inform the complainant of the results of the call for applications IST-99-1-1A in which he participated in June 1999.

THE INQUIRY

The European Commission's opinion

The opinion of the European Commission on the complaint was in summary the following:

Génération Interland's application had been considered inadmissible as soon as it was received by the Commission's services. The complainant had not used the appropriate forms to submit it. Administrative data was missing. Furthermore, the promotion of modern Latin could not be considered as being a suitable objective in programmes concerning technologies and engineering for software, systems and services.

1. An acknowledgement of receipt for the applications is contained in the application form. The Commission returns the acknowledgement of receipt partially filled-in by the applicants once it receives the application. Since the complainant had not used this form in his application, he could not receive it in return.
   The complainant's reminding letter of 31 December 1999 was not replied to because the Commission had planned to send a mailing to inform all the unsuccessful applicants in January 2000.
2. Further to the Commission's decision regarding the applications, the unsuccessful applicants were informed of their exclusion in January 2000. Unfortunately the complainant had been left out of this mailing. This had however been corrected by the Commission.

The complainant's observations

The European Ombudsman forwarded the European Commission's opinion to the complainant with an invitation to make observations. In his reply, the complainant put forward that the Commission's opinion contained inaccuracies which had to be denounced.

Despite several requests, Génération Interland had never received an application form. The complainant even expressed doubts about their existence. Furthermore, the complainant emphasised that Génération Interland's application had obviously been misunderstood. It did not concern the promotion of a language, but the use of this language for the internet, which in his view matched the objectives of the programme.

1. The complainant argued that he had sent the form to be used as acknowledgement of receipt by fax on 11 June 1999. He never received it in return and was not indicated any reference of the registration.
2. The complainant considers, that the fact that Génération Interland had been forgotten when the Commission informed the unsuccessful applicants, did not happen by chance. It amounted to discrimination. Finally he said that the list of projects funded under the Key Action under which Génération Interland participated still had not been disclosed to him.

FURTHER INQUIRIES

The Ombudsman's services contacted the Commission to be provided with supporting documents which had not be enclosed with the Commission's opinion. The Commission disclosed both the letter of 21 March 2000 informing the complainant of his application's failure and the list of selected proposals.

THE DECISION

1 The failure to reply to the application and subsequent request

1.1 The complainant alleged that Directorate General XIII of the Commission failed to acknowledge receipt of the complainant's application of 12 June 1999 and to reply to his subsequent reminding letter of 31 December 1999. In the course of the inquiry the complainant also alleged that he was not sent the application forms.

1.2 The Commission argued that the application had not been handed in on the appropriate application forms and that the acknowledgement of receipt form contained therein could therefore not be returned to the applicant. The complainant's reminding letter of 31 December 1999 was not replied to because the Commission had planned to send a mailing to all unsuccessful applicants in January 2000.

1.3 It appears from the information received by the Ombudsman, that the application had been submitted by mail on 12 June 1999 without the appropriate forms, contrary to the instructions given in the relevant "Guide for proposers". The latter also contained instructions on how to obtain these forms which were in particular available on the Internet.

1.4 A form entitled "Request for a Proposal Number for the 1st call of the IST programme" contained in the "Guide for proposers" had been sent to the Commission by Fax on 11 June 1999. This form however was a pre-registration form which was not the acknowledgement of receipt form to be handed in with the application.

1.5 It seems that the complainant failed to follow the required procedure. The Commission's explanation therefore appears to be reasonable. Furthermore, in view of the Commission's intention to inform all the unsuccessful applicants in January 2000, the explanations given by the Commission regarding its decision not to specifically reply to the complainant's reminding letter of 31 December 1999 appears to be reasonable as well.

1.6 The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that there is no maladministration as regards this aspect of the case.

2 The Commission's failure to inform the complainant about the outcome of the procedure

2.1 Directorate General XIII of the Commission failed to inform the complainant of the results of the call for applications IST-99-1-1A in which he participated in June 1999.

2.2 The Commission explained that the complainant had erroneously been forgotten when all the unsuccessful applicants were informed. This error had however been corrected.

2.3 The Ombudsman notes that the Commission informed the complainant of the rejection of his application on 21 March 2000. The list of the selected applications unsuccessfully requested by the complainant was forwarded to the Ombudsman following further inquiries conducted by his services. This list is sent to the complainant together with the present decision.

2.4 The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that there is no maladministration as regards this aspect of the case.

3 Conclusion

On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Commission. The Ombudsman has therefore decided to close the case.

The President of the European Commission will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN