Dear Mr R.,

On 31 July 2001, you submitted, acting on behalf of the commune of Straubenhardt, a complaint against the European Commission concerning the latter's handling of an application for a grant towards a town-twinning project.

On 23 August 2001, I forwarded the complaint to the Commission for its comments.

The Commission sent its opinion on your complaint on 27 November 2001. I forwarded the Commission's opinion to you on 29 November 2001 with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished, by 31 December 2001 at the latest. No such observations were received by me by that date.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant is a German commune that applied for a Community grant towards a town-twinning project. The application was lodged on 7 March 2001. On 30 April 2001, the Commission informed the complainant that the application had to be rejected since the bank details of both the host town and the guest town were missing.

In its complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant pointed out that the bank details had already been submitted with the application that had been lodged the year before and had furthermore been provided to the Commission after the latter's letter of 30 April 2001 had been received. In the complainant's view, the rejection of its application was thus not understandable.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion, the Commission made the following comments:

The complainant's application had not been selected since it had not been in conformity with the rules set out in the relevant call for proposals(1), namely point 7.1.d) of the call for proposals which provided that the application should contain "the organisation's bank details". This data was indispensable for the proper handling of applications. Applicants were therefore reminded by an indication inserted in the application form that they should fill in and submit the financial form foreseen for this purpose.

The argument that the bank details had been in the hands of the Commission's services since the application that had been lodged the previous year could not be accepted. In respect of every application a new file was opened that had to contain information on the towns concerned that was as recent and correct as possible.

The last paragraph of the call for proposals stipulated that "[a]fter the deadline for the submission of the application has elapsed the dossier may not be modified in any way". This provision aimed to ensure that all applications were treated in an equal way and that applicants who had submitted a complete application in accordance with the rules set out in the call for proposals were not disadvantaged.

The complainant's observations

No observations were received from the complainant.

THE DECISION

1 Unfair rejection of application

1.1 The complainant, a German commune, applied for a Community grant for a town-twinning measure. The application lodged on 7 March 2001 was rejected by the Commission on 30 April 2001 on the grounds that the bank details of both the host town and the guest town were missing. The complainant considers that the Commission's decision was not understandable, given that the bank details had already been submitted with the application that had been lodged the year before and had furthermore been provided to the Commission after the latter's letter of 30 April 2001 had been received.

1.2 The Commission takes the view that the application did not comply with the formal requirements set out in the relevant call for proposals(2). According to the Commission, the application had not included "the organisation's bank details" required by point 7.1.d) of the call for proposals. The Commission further points out that for each application a new file is opened that has to contain information on the towns concerned that is as recent and correct as possible. Finally, the Commission notes the call for proposals stipulated that "[a]fter the deadline for the submission of the application has elapsed the dossier may not be modified in any way". This provision aimed to ensure that all applications were treated in an equal way and that applicants who had submitted a complete application in accordance with the rules set out in the call for proposals were not disadvantaged.

1.3 The Ombudsman has already had the opportunity to consider the Commission's new system for handling applications for grants in relation to town-twinning projects in the context of his inquiry into a similar complaint(3). In this decision, the Ombudsman came to the conclusion that the Commission's decision to opt for a strict interpretation of the new rules so as to handle applications as quickly as possible did not appear to be unreasonable. In this context, the Ombudsman noted that if applicants who had failed to submit complete applications were given more time to remedy these defects, delays working to the disadvantage of applicants who had complied with all the relevant requirements would be likely to arise. The Ombudsman stressed, however, that such a strict approach was only appropriate if sufficient information was given to applicants and if errors that were caused by the inadequate drafting of the relevant forms did not automatically lead to the rejection of an application(4). These considerations are also applicable in the present case.

1.4 The complainant does not dispute that its original application did not include "the organisation's bank details". The Ombudsman notes, however, that this data had to be provided by applicants according to the directions given in the call for proposals. The application form had expressly reminded applicants of the need to fill in and submit the financial form foreseen for this purpose. The Ombudsman further considers that the reason given by the Commission for insisting that the relevant information be given in every application (so as to ensure that the relevant file contains information on the towns concerned that is as recent and correct as possible) makes sense. In view of these circumstances, the Commission's view that the application had to be rejected since it was not in conformity with the rules applicable appears to be reasonable.

2 Conclusion

On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, it appears that there is no maladministration on the part of the Commission. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

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

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN

---

(1) OJ 2000 C 320, page 9.

(2) OJ 2000 C 320, page 9.

(3) Complaint 905/2001/GG. A copy of the decision in this case as published on the Ombudsman's website (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu) is enclosed.

(4) See paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of the decision in case 905/2001/GG.