Decision of the European Ombudsman on complaint 233/2001/(HC)OV against the European Commission

Dear Mr R.,

On 5 February 2001, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman on behalf of Stichting Zevenaar Ondersteunt Mátészalka (ZOM) concerning the refusal of a grant for a town-twinning project by DG Education and Culture.

On 14 March 2001, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 11 May 2001. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 12 June 2001.

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

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the relevant facts were as follows:

The municipality of Zevenaar in the Netherlands submitted on 29 May 2000 a request for a grant for a town-twinning project between Zevenaar and the Hungarian municipality of Mátészalka. The project, which concerned an exchange of students, had to be executed by the foundation ZOM (Zevenaar Ondersteunt Mátészalka, hereafter "the complainant") and was planned for 6-12 September 2000.

By letter of 8 September 2000, which arrived at 12 September 2000 (i.e. the last day of the project), the Commission informed the complainant that the request for a grant had been rejected. The Commission stated that the criteria set out for the grant were not fulfilled because there were no plans to discuss a specific European topic. The Commission did not have anymore resources and had therefore to apply the criteria in a very strict sense.

According to the complainant, it ran into serious financial problems because the grant was necessary to cover the costs which had been made.

On 5 February 2001, the complainant wrote to the Ombudsman alleging that:

1) the Commission ought to have informed the complainant in due time that the request for a grant had been rejected so that the town twinning project could have been cancelled;

2) the planned town-twinning project fulfilled all the criteria set out by the Commission and should therefore not have been rejected for a grant.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion the Commission observed that in the year 2000 the service responsible for the management of the town-twinning programme received some 3000 requests for grants. All applications had to be carefully examined in order to assess their eligibility and to set the amount of grant to be awarded. Handling such a huge number of files with the available human resources required some time. Consequently applicants were informed later than usual.

Until 2000 grant allocation procedures for town twinning projects were governed by criteria established yearly following consultation with the European Parliament and the national town-twinning associations. These criteria were distributed widely and sent to the applicants. The 2000 criteria for financial assistance to town-twinning clearly caution that "there is no guarantee that a grant will be awarded for a specific measure, even if it does satisfy the eligibility criteria. Eligibility does not oblige the European Commission to award the grant". The Commission enclosed this document to its opinion.

It is also mentioned under point 4 ("Processing applications") that "if the European Commission accepts the application, all the authorities concerned will be informed in writing". As the town of Zevenaar had not received any written notification, there was no reason to assume that a grant would be awarded.

Furthermore Zevenaar and Mátészalka had received a grant for their meeting in Mátészalka on 23 April 2000. As the number of requests exceeded the Commission's capacity to provide financial support in 2000, preference was given to projects that had not yet received any grant during the year.

For the year 2001 a new procedure (call for proposals) was introduced after consultation of the national town-twinning associations in October 2000. Greater efforts were made to ensure that applicants receive the best possible information. The text of the call for proposals was published in the Official Journal C 320 of 9 November 2000 and on the EAC web page. For questions regarding applications a mailbox and a hotline were created.

The complainant's observations

The complainant observed that a too large amount of applications may not be a reason to inform the applicants of the rejection when the project has already taken place. The complainant several times contacted the Commission by phone, but was not clearly informed about the situation.

The complainant observed that the "processing of applications" (point 4) implies, according to principles of good administration, that not only applicants whose project is accepted but also applicants whose project is rejected are informed of the decision. This is necessary in order to take action, such as the cancellation of the project.

The document enclosed by the Commission "New criteria for the subvention of town twinning projects by the Commission" was used by the complainant as guideline for its application. As no applications had been refused until that point, the complainant had no reasons to believe that the project would not be funded in September.

The complainant welcomed that new procedures had been established, but observed that this did not solve its own problem, namely a cost of 20.000 Dutch guilders which had as a result that the complainant had to cancel its activities in 2001.

THE DECISION

1 The alleged failure to inform the complainant in due time of the rejection of its application

1.1 The complainant alleged that the Commission ought to have informed it in due time that its request for a grant had been rejected so that the town twinning project could have been cancelled. The Commission observed that a huge number of files (3000 in total) had to be handled with restricted human resources. Referring to point 4 of the eligibility criteria, it also pointed out that, as the town of Zevenaar had not received any written notification, there was no reason to assume that a grant would be awarded.

1.2 Principles of good administration require that the Community institutions and bodies take decisions on requests within a reasonable time-limit. The same principles require that decisions which affect the rights or interests of natural of legal persons are notified in writing, as soon as the decision is taken, to the person concerned. Point 4 of the "New criteria applicable to financial assistance from the European Commission for town-twinning 2000" provides that "If the application is not accepted, the European Commission will inform the applicant in writing of the reasons for the rejection".

1.3 In the present case, it appears that the complainant submitted on 29 May 2000 a request for a grant to its town-twinning project. In the application form, the complainant had indicated 6-12 September 2000 as date of the project. As a matter of good administration, the Commission should have informed the complainant of its decision a reasonable time before the date of the planned town twinning project. It appears however that the complainant was informed of the Commission's negative decision only on 12 September 2000, when the project had already taken place. This constitutes an instance of maladministration and the Ombudsman makes the critical remark below.

2 The alleged unjustified refusal of the grant

2.1 The complainant alleged that the planned town-twinning project fulfilled all the criteria set out by the Commission and should therefore not have been rejected for a grant. The Commission referred to the 2000 criteria for financial assistance which stated that there was no guarantee that a grant be awarded for a specific measure, even if it does satisfy the eligibility criteria. The Commission also pointed out that, as the complainant had already received a grant for its meeting of 23 April 2000, and as the number of requests exceeded the Commission's capacity to provide financial support in 2000, preference was given to projects that had not yet received any grant during the year.

2.2 The Ombudsman notes that, according to the criteria for financial assistance (point I.A.1.), "to qualify for assistance, the planned exchange must be centred around a high-quality programme, which must involve all participants and deal with a clearly defined European theme using appropriate teaching and educational resources (.)". The annex to the criteria for financial assistance also mentions in a note that "There is no guarantee that a grant will be awarded for a specific measure, even if it does satisfy the eligibility criteria. Eligibility does not oblige the European Commission to award a grant".

2.3 In the present case, it appears from the application annexed by the complainant that it merely mentioned, without defining any further these issues, a "discussion between the participants about the European Community" and a "discussion about the Netherlands and Hungary, about the advantages and disadvantages of the accession of Hungary to the EU". The Commission's conclusion in its rejection letter of 8 September 2000 that the complainant's project did not comply with the selection criteria, because it did not deal with a clearly defined European theme, was thus not unreasonable.

2.4. Considering the Commission's discretionary power and the fact that the criteria mentioned that there was no guarantee that a grant would be awarded, the Commission's rejection and accompanying explanations do not appear to be unreasonable. The Commission thus stayed within the limits of its legal authority. No instance of maladministration was therefore found with regard to this aspect of the case.

3 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into part 1 of this complaint, it is necessary to make the following critical remark:

Principles of good administration require that the Community institutions and bodies take decisions on requests within a reasonable time-limit. The same principles require that decisions which affect the rights or interests of natural of legal persons are notified in writing, as soon as the decision is taken, to the person concerned. In the present case, as a matter of good administration, the Commission should have informed the complainant of its decision a reasonable time before the date of the planned town twinning project. It appears however that the complainant was informed of the Commission's negative decision only on 12 September 2000, when the project had already taken place. This constitutes an instance of maladministration.

Given that this aspect of the case concerns procedures relating to specific events in the past, it is not appropriate to pursue a friendly settlement of the matter. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN