Background to the complaint

1. The complainant is the founder of a company focused on shrimp farming in Europe. In 2025, the complainant submitted a proposal for funding under the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF)[1] to the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA).

2. On 30 April 2025, CINEA informed the complainant that her project could not be funded, as the proposal did not obtain the necessary score. In its decision, CINEA stated that the complainant had 30 days, thus until 30 May 2025, to seek an evaluation review through her online account.[2]

3. On 16 May 2025, the complainant created an IT ticket concerning some technical difficulties she had encountered when trying to submit her request for an evaluation review to CINEA.

4. On 20 May 2025, the complainant notified CINEA by e-mail that the system for filing an evaluation review through the online account was not working. She therefore sent her request for evaluation review to CINEA by e-mail.

5. On 21 May 2025, CINEA replied to the complainant informing her that a review should be requested via the ‘Funding and Tender Portal’ account or, in case of technical difficulties, via the IT Helpdesk. Still on the same day, the complainant informed CINEA that she had tried to follow the applicable instructions to submit a review request, but the system did not work. CINEA reiterated its advice to the complainant.

6. On 31 May 2025, the complainant turned to the European Ombudsman, complaining that CINEA failed to acknowledge the technical failure of the platform, register her request for review and process it accordingly.

The inquiry

7. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into how CINEA ensured an effective review process for a project proposal rejected for EU funding.

8. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman received CINEA’s reply to the complaint. The Ombudsman inquiry team also inspected relevant documents held by CINEA. The complainant was offered an opportunity to make comments on the reply, but did not avail herself of this possibility.

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

9. CINEA said that it manages programmes delegated to it by the European Commission and, as an EU Executive Agency, it is committed to deliver high-quality services to all applicants and to ensure equal treatment in all phases of the evaluation and selection process. The relevant IT portal is designed to ensure that all applicants have equal access to the review procedure and that submissions are handled in a consistent and traceable manner.

10. To clarify what happened in the complainant’s case, CINEA had checked internally whether the complainant had tried to submit her complaint through the relevant system. The Helpdesk in charge made the relevant checks, but no trace could be found to suggest that the complainant had made use of this possibility. While the complainant’s IT ticket of 16 May 2025 could be found, the complainant did not enclose with it any evidence of a technical problem. CINEA said that, apart from stating that the systems did not work, the complainant did not specify which systems she had tried to use, nor did she provide further details (such as screenshots or captures) of the attempts she had made or of the problem itself. This made any verification of the alleged problem very difficult.

11. CINEA regretted that the complainant had experienced difficulties with the system. However, it found no evidence of any technical failure on its side that would have prevented the submission of a request for review. No similar issues had been reported to CINEA by any other unsuccessful applicant to the same call. The Helpdesk confirmed that the online system was operational and available for requests for review to be submitted by applicants during the relevant period. CINEA was not aware of any outages, systemic malfunctions or any broader technical issues with the portal during the period.

12. CINEA underlined that the period for requesting an evaluation review was open during 30 days from the receipt of the rejection letter. Based on the information provided by the complainant, the last point of time when she attempted to initiate the redress procedure in the system was on 20 May 2025, thus ten days before the expiry of the 30-day deadline. It remains unclear why she subsequently decided to discontinue her efforts.

13. Finally, CINEA assured the Ombudsman that it takes the fair treatment of all applicants very seriously. However, in the absence of any evidence of a technical fault or other irregularity, it cannot retroactively reopen the redress procedure or reconsider an application outside the established framework. Doing so at this stage would amount to unequal treatment of applicants.

The Ombudsman's assessment

14. Throughout the procedure, CINEA clearly informed the complainant that a request for review of the evaluation had to be submitted online. CINEA also provided the complainant with practical information in this respect, including links to the relevant websites as well as to the IT How To[3] guide on the EU Funding and Tender Portal and to the IT Helpdesk Contact Form[4] in case of technical problems.

15. The inspected documents held by CINEA support CINEA’s statement that the complainant did not provide evidence of the technical problems she had encountered. While it is regrettable that the complainant did not manage to submit a request for evaluation review, the Ombudsman finds no reason to question CINEA’s statement that the online system was operational and available during the relevant period. After filing the IT ticket, the complainant appears not to have made any further attempt to launch, through the IT system, the procedure for requesting a review of the evaluation. Nor did the complainant reach out to the Helpdesk to seek further help, despite having ten more days to submit the request for evaluation review.

16. On the basis of the above, the Ombudsman concludes that there was no maladministration by CINEA.

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion[5]:

There was no maladministration by CINEA.

The complainant and CINEA will be informed of this decision.

Tina Nilsson
Head of the Case-handling Unit

Strasbourg, 15/12/2025

 

[1] The European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) provides support for developing innovative projects ensuring that aquatic and maritime resources are used sustainably: https://oceans-and-fisheries.ec.europa.eu/funding/emfaf_en.

[2] The procedural rules for submitting requests for review are also set out in the EU Funding & Tenders Online Manual: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/docs/2021-2027/common/guidance/om_en.pdf.

[3] https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/funding-tenders-opportunities/spaces/IT/pages/5472259/IT+How+to

[4] IT Helpdesk Contact Form: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/support/helpdesks/contact-form

[5] This complaint has been dealt with under delegated case handling, in accordance with the Decision of the European Ombudsman adopting Implementing Provisions.