The background to the complaint

1. The complainant is a scientific researcher. In May 2008, he submitted a funding proposal to the European Research Council (ERC), which was established to fund and support frontier research in the European Union. In carrying out its tasks, the ERC is assisted by the European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA), which is an agency of the European Commission. The complainant applied for an ERC Advanced Grant, which was funded under call ERC-2009-AdG. The complainant's proposal was entitled [...[*]].

2. According to the applicable ERC Grant Schemes Guide for Applicants (the 'Guide for applicants'), a proposal for an Advanced Grant was subdivided into the following parts[1]:

- Part A, which was composed of administrative forms, including an abstract of the proposal;

- Part B, which was divided into:

Part B1, which was further subdivided into the following:

Part B1a, referred to as 'the principal investigator', comprising (i) the researcher's scientific leadership profile, (ii) the researcher's curriculum vitae, and (iii) a ten-year track record; and

Part B1b, comprising (iv) an extended synopsis, which was not supposed to be longer than five pages and "should give a concise presentation of the scientific proposal, with particular attention to its ground-breaking nature and how it may open up new horizons or opportunities for research"; and

Part B2, consisting of (i) the actual research proposal and (ii) information on the scientific environment.

The proposals submitted in the framework of call ERC-2009-AdG were examined in a two-stage procedure. At the first stage (Step 1), proposals were checked to make sure that they met all the eligibility criteria. Thereafter, a panel of peer review evaluators assessed Part B1 in light of two criteria. These related to (i) the principal investigator and (ii) the research project. In order to pass to the next stage (Step 2), the proposal had to obtain minimum pass scores for both criteria (2 out of 4 points), as well as to rank above a certain cut-off level. At this stage, the evaluators assessed the entire proposal. Researchers whose eligible proposals failed to qualify for Step 2 were restricted from reapplying for the following year's call for funding, namely, ERC- 2010-AdG. It appears useful to note that one of the central issues of this case concerns the fact that a copy of the abstract (about half a page in length) foreseen under Part A was also submitted under Part B1 of the complainant's proposal. The complainant argued that the actual extended synopsis was thus missing from the proposal, that his proposal was therefore incomplete and should have been considered ineligible.

3. Part B1 of the complainant's application was evaluated by a panel of four experts on the basis of the two above-mentioned criteria. The panel awarded [less than two] points for the first criterion and [less than two] points for the second. In its overall comments, the evaluators noted, in relation to the first criterion, that [...]. Regarding the second criterion, the panel remarked that [...] The evaluators made the following individual comments as regards the above-mentioned two criteria:

Evaluator 1

(i) [...]
(ii) [...]

Evaluator 2

(i) [...]
(ii) [...]

Evaluator 3

(i) [...]
(ii) [...]

Evaluator 4

(i) [...]
(ii) [...]

4. By letter dated 26 August 2009, ERCEA informed the complainant that his proposal did not pass Step 1 of the review procedure. It also provided him with the evaluation panel's comments and informed him that specific resubmission restrictions applied to proposals that did not pass Step 1.

5. On 27 September 2009, the complainant appealed to a Redress Committee. He argued that his proposal should have been rejected as ineligible because he had forgotten to add the extended synopsis. In this regard, he outlined that the Guide for applicants explicitly stated that incomplete proposals would not be evaluated. This would have allowed him to resubmit his application under the ERC-2010-AdG call. The complainant further submitted that his proposal and scientific leadership profile were evaluated in an incompetent and lazy manner; in his view, the abstract of his proposal alone was sufficient for an evaluator to understand the proposal's significance. With regard to the evaluation of his scientific leadership profile, he argued that the evaluators ignored the exceptional scientific quality and impact of his published work. Instead, they preferred to base themselves on indirect criteria of 'leadership' that were not mentioned in any ERC document. These included "bibliometric" statistics, the amount of grant funding received, or the number of supervised graduate students. In the complainant's view, the fact that a researcher has not had enough "established top dog" experience cannot justify a refusal to fund a truly original and significant scientific breakthrough. Moreover, he considered that the evaluation panel did not have the necessary competence to evaluate his curriculum vitae. He chose the Life Science 2 panel (Genetics, Genomics, Bioinformatics and Systems Biology) because his breakthrough methodology was becoming increasingly crucial to current research in these fields. However, his output up to that point had been in other fields, and the published work of the panel members showed that they had no expertise in these other fields. What was more, the experts of the Life Science 2 panel of 2009 did not have the crucial statistical and mathematical expertise to evaluate the breakthrough character and the full originality of his methodology. This was shown by the nature of their published scientific output and by the incompetence and vagueness of their "technical" comments. The panel indirectly acknowledged its incompetence by failing to comment on the substance of his published output. His leadership experience was that of a "trailblazer, out-of-the-box thinker, and discovery maker", which could be confirmed by a "non-animus-driven" expert in the various fields in which he had worked. A "bibliometric" approach was especially flawed in his case because much of his output showed that crucial assumptions made within previously thriving research fields were wrong. The researchers then simply stopped publishing on these subjects and moved on to new scientific areas. This was the reason why he did not get many citations. With regard to the score concerning the research project criterion, he put forward that it should reflect the ground-breaking nature of the proposed research, its potential scientific impact, its methodological feasibility and its potential to deliver a breakthrough by means of a completely novel approach. However, none of these points were mentioned by the reviewers to justify the low score given. This was in spite of the fact that the abstract addressed these points explicitly to help the evaluators assess them. He also challenged specific statements made by the individual evaluators. One of these statements outlined that, from [...], the presentation of the new method was [...] because the presentation supposedly restricted itself to [...]. The complainant stressed that none of these techniques played a role in his new methodology. In the abstract, the noun [...] was used only once in reference to what older methods could do. The adjective [...] was not used in the abstract at all, but rather appeared in his scientific leadership profile and in part B2. He also disagreed with the comment that the [...]. In his view, the evaluators completely disregarded the advantage of his method, which was explicitly stressed in the abstract, namely, that it would overcome a computational hurdle in data mining believed insurmountable.

6. On 10 March 2010, the complainant was informed that his appeal had been rejected. The Redress Committee underlined that it could not call into question the scientific judgment of appropriately qualified experts. It stated that the complainant's proposal had been examined by independent experts, who were all relevant specialists in the scientific field concerned. Moreover, it pointed out that "the eligibility check concerns the presence of the appropriate parts of the proposal, namely part A, B1, B2 ...". The complainant had provided the required parts, including the abstract of the project and the description of his principal investigator profile The Redress Committee concluded that his proposal should be considered eligible and that no procedural error was made in the evaluation process.

7. On 10 March 2010, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman with a complaint against ERCEA. In his complaint, he referred to the arguments that he had put forward in his appeal to the Redress Committee.

The subject matter of the inquiry

8. The complainant's following allegations and claims were included in the Ombudsman’s inquiry:

Allegations:

(1) The complainant’s research proposal under ERC-2009-AdG call was wrongly declared eligible. In support of his allegation, the complainant argues that his proposal should have been declared ineligible because the applicable rules explicitly stated that incomplete proposals would not be evaluated.

(2) The evaluation of the proposal was substantively unsatisfactory because the evaluators (i) assessed his principal investigator profile based on a bibliometrical approach; (ii) invoked indirect criteria of leadership that are not mentioned or explained in any ERC document; (iii) made generic and "animus-driven" comments on the basis of his abstract; and (iv) lacked the necessary mathematical and statistical expertise correctly to evaluate his proposal.

(3) The Redress Committee failed to address the arguments contained in his appeal.

Claims:

The complainant claimed that ERCEA should:

(1) (first option) allow him to resubmit his proposal for the ERC-2010-AdG programme as if he had never submitted the 2009 proposal; or

(2) (second option) allow the Step 1 review to take place under normal conditions by permitting him to add a project synopsis to his 2009 proposal, reconvening the Step 1 reviewers and instructing them to:

(a) summon external experts from the disparate fields, in which he has already published works in order to challenge or confirm, in a direct, competent and explicit manner, his claims of outstanding scientific output; and

(b) summon external experts in brute-force data mining, in applied and mathematical statistics, and in genome-wide scans of genes and gene products, who can confirm or deny the significant scientific progress of his methodology; or

(3) (third option) allow his proposal to move on to Step 2 of the review (preferably after the addition of a synopsis), and then evaluate part B2 of his research proposal using the measures outlined above.

The inquiry

9. On 8 April 2010, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry into this complaint. He asked ERCEA for an opinion and informed it that he also considered it necessary to inspect the relevant file.

10. On 27 May 2010, the Ombudsman’s representatives inspected ERCEA's file.

11. At the inspection, the Commission informed the Ombudsman that it would take over the handling of the complaint from ERCEA. The Ombudsman therefore decided that the present inquiry should henceforth be directed at the Commission.

12. On 14 September 2010, the Commission provided its opinion on the present complaint. This opinion and a copy of the report on the inspection were forwarded to the complainant for his observations.

13. On 28 September 2010, 24 October 2010 and 11 April 2011, the complainant sent his observations.

The Ombudsman's analysis and conclusions

Preliminary remarks

14. At the outset, it appears useful to note that the present complaint touches upon aspects dealing with the evaluation of a scientific proposal. In this context, the Ombudsman points out that the evaluation of such proposals raises complex scientific questions. The Ombudsman considers that, in examining issues concerning an appraisal of complex scientific questions, he should not substitute his assessment for that of the scientific experts. His review should be limited to assessing whether there is a manifest error in the reasoning of the contested decision or whether a procedural mistake has occurred.

15. The complainant's allegations and claims are closely connected and to a certain extent interdependent. Therefore, it is appropriate to examine them together.

A. Allegations concerning (a) the eligibility of the complainant's proposal, (b) the evaluation of the proposal and (c) the handling of the arguments in his appeal as well as the related claims

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

16. During the inspection carried out on 9 March 2010, the representatives of ERCEA and the Commission pointed out that the research proposals were submitted by means of an electronic application system. These proposals were accessible and verifiable for a month after the submission deadline and could be withdrawn up until the evaluation took place.

17. In its opinion, the Commission explained that the procedure for the award of grants is governed by:

(i) Council Decision No 2006/972/EC concerning the specific programme "Ideas" implementing the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013)[2];

(ii) Regulation No 1906/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the rules for the participation of undertakings, research centres and universities in actions under the Seventh Framework Programme and for the dissemination of research results (2007/2013)[3];

(iii) the Financial Regulation[4];

(iv) the ERC Work Programme 2009[5];

(v) the Commission Decision on the ERC Rules for submission of proposals and the related evaluation, selection and award procedures relevant to the Ideas Specific Programme ('the ERC Rules for submission')[6]; and

(vi) the following guidelines: (a) the ERC Grant Schemes Guide for Peer Reviewers[7], (b) the ERC Redress Guidelines[8] and (c) the Guide for applicants.

18. The proposals had to fulfil all eligibility criteria in order to be retained for peer evaluation. The eligibility criterion relating to the completeness of the proposal meant that all requested components and forms had to be present. In this context, the Commission referred to point 2.2.6. of the ERC Rules for submission, which provided that "(a)ll proposals submitted under a call will be checked against the following eligibility criteria: … Completeness of the proposal, i.e. the presence of all requested components and forms." The footnote to this sentence read as follows: "The completeness of the information contained in the proposal will be for the peer review experts to evaluate: the eligibility checks only concern the presence of the appropriate parts of the proposal …"

19. If a proposal is not retained for funding, the applicant may turn to the Redress Committee. The Redress Committee does not evaluate the proposal, but verifies that there were no procedural errors and that the independent experts' evaluation was carried out in compliance with the procedural rules set out in the ERC Work Programme 2009 and the ERC Rules for submission of proposals.

As regards the eligibility of the proposal

20. The ERC Work Programme 2009 and the Guide for Applicants do not define a specific format or minimum length for the extended synopsis. The only requirement for the synopsis is that it contain a "concise presentation of the scientific proposal" and "the ground-breaking nature of the research." ERCEA verified that Part B of the proposal was present and that it contained a concise explanation of the ground-breaking nature of the scientific proposal. This was sufficient to consider the proposal complete and ERCEA thus allowed it to proceed to the first step evaluation. The proposal would only have been ineligible if an entire part of the application had been missing. The assessment of the proposal's content was carried out by the peer review evaluators. The latter noted the absence of a proper synopsis, but jointly decided that they had sufficient information to evaluate the proposal. Once the proposals had been uploaded electronically, they could be accessed for a month after the submission deadline and withdrawn until the evaluation took place. The complainant did not make use of this possibility.

21. In his request for redress, the complainant acknowledged that he included an abstract in Part B1. By stating that "the abstract suffices for an ok-competent reader to realize that my discovery is immensely original and breaks downs (sic) barriers to scientific inquiry", he also acknowledged that this abstract was sufficient to evaluate his proposal.

22. The Redress Committee first met on 18 November 2009. It verified that Part B and, in particular, Part B1 were not missing. Moreover, the Redress Committee considered that the abstract was sufficient for the proposal to be evaluated. Nevertheless, it decided to ask ERCEA's legal department for advice. ERCEA's legal department concluded that the proposal should indeed be considered eligible. The Redress Committee met a second time on 15 December 2009, and confirmed the eligibility of the proposal.

23. The Commission pointed out that, even after the proposals had been uploaded electronically, they were still accessible and could be verified for up to a month after the submission deadline. The complainant could have checked the content of his proposal or withdrawn it before the evaluation. Given that he did not do so, the proposal was evaluated as it stood. Allowing the complainant to be treated differently would discriminate against other applicants and infringe the principle of equal treatment.

As regards the evaluation of the proposal

24. The Commission pointed out that the peer review evaluation is carried out by panels of high-level scientists and scholars, who may be assisted by specialist referees. The persons involved are experts with recognised professional experience in their respective field of research. They are appointed by the Commission on the basis of a proposal from the ERC's Scientific Council. The panels are set up in order to cover the spectrum of research areas of the call. Each panel has responsibility for a particular set of research fields. The panels operate under the chairmanship of a senior expert. The individual assessments of a proposal are carried out by at least three experts, who work remotely and transmit their evaluations electronically. The whole panel discusses the proposal. In the case at hand, ten experts were in charge of evaluating the complainant’s proposal.

25. The experts’ comments were based on their professional knowledge and experience. Even though it was understandable that the applicant might disagree with their comments, ERCEA was not in a position to contest the opinion of the experts unless they were manifestly in contradiction with each other. The complainant applied for a specific programme which finances frontier research involving "high risk pioneering projects" that go well beyond established and consolidated research. This implies that experts are given a margin of appreciation within the limits established by the legal framework. The panel concluded that the complainant’s proposal should not pass to Step 2 of the evaluation procedure because it failed to obtain the minimum marks in the Step 1 assessment. On that basis, the proposal was rejected.

26. The Commission rejected the complainant’s argument that the evaluation panel applied criteria that were not mentioned in any ERC document. It pointed out that the ERC Work Programme 2009 expressly stated that excellence was the sole criterion of evaluation. The ERC Work Programme 2009 specified that: "applicants for prestigious ERC Advanced Grants are expected to be active researchers and to have a track-record of significant research achievements in the last 10 years to demonstrate a record of achievements appropriate to the field. There is little prospect of an applicant succeeding in the absence of such a record"[9]. It further stated that the "scientific leadership profile should include achievements demonstrating the applicant's capacity to go significantly beyond the state of (the) art; ability to inspire younger researchers" and provide "information on the careers of supervised graduate and post doctoral students"[10]. The ERC Work Programme 2009 was part of the documentation published both on a dedicated electronic system (CORDIS) and on the ERC website for call ERC-2009-AdG. Therefore, the complainant could not argue that those evaluation criteria were not mentioned in any ERC materials.

27. The complainant requested the established evaluation procedure to be modified to allow him either to resubmit his proposal or to have it re-evaluated by other experts who fulfilled the criteria he put forward. However, these requests could not be complied with. The Redress Committee did not recommend a re-evaluation or a re-submission of the complainant's proposal, and the ERC Work Programme 2009 stipulates that a researcher, whose eligible proposal in 2009 did not meet the thresholds on both Step 1 criteria, cannot re-submit a proposal for an Advanced Grant under the next call.

As regards the alleged failure to address the arguments set out in the request for redress

28. The Commission put forward that the Redress Committee does not "evaluate the proposal". It instead reviews the curricula vitae of the experts, the individual comments and the evaluation report so as to verify that the evaluation was carried out in compliance with the procedural rules. This limited scope of review was clearly indicated in the ERC Rules for submission. The Redress Committee could not challenge the decision of the evaluation panel. At its meetings of 18 November and 15 December 2009, it verified that no procedural mistakes had occurred and confirmed that the evaluation was carried out in accordance with the established rules.

29. In his observations, the complainant wondered whether the Commission's goal was to have as many proposals as possible accepted for review and then to reject them shortly afterwards. The Commission put forward that the eligibility check concerned only the presence of appropriate parts of the proposal. In response, he questioned how his very short abstract could be deemed appropriate by anybody. If the evaluators complained about the absence of an extended synopsis and considered this an important issue, then ERCEA could and should have been able to realise this too. Given that five pages were available and everybody else used all of the space available, it was not difficult to conclude that a half-page abstract did not constitute an 'extended synopsis'. Furthermore, it would not have been difficult to notice that his supposed extended synopsis was identical to the abstract included in Part A.

30. The complainant added that he could not withdraw his proposal because he was not aware that he had failed to include the synopsis until he had read the evaluator's reviews. Moreover, even though ERCEA knew that he had a full month to withdraw the proposal after submitting it, he was not informed that the abstract was unusually short for an extended synopsis.

31. In the complainant's view, the decisive issue underlying his complaint was whether or not a potentially outstanding scientific breakthrough had been given proper consideration. ERC Advanced Grants were created to support scientific breakthroughs and not to reward "meritorious" individual researchers, educators of younger scientists or people who have been very successful at gathering research funding. Up until that point, the replies to his appeals had systematically avoided any mention of his accusations of dishonesty and fraudulent behaviour on the part of the evaluators. Instead, they merely invoked inapplicable rules that excluded challenges to the evaluators' competence. However, it could not be argued that the evaluators had discretion to decide whether a method was new or if other methods existed that could do the same. Either they could produce citations which proved the existence of such a method or they could not. Moreover, the evaluators made comments that clearly showed that they did not read his application, but pretended to have done so.

32. When confronted with accusations against persons working on its behalf, the Commission simply hid behind rules that did not allow the experts' opinions to be called into question. Due to their laziness and incompetence, the evaluators did not consider the many direct indicators of his scientific excellence, notably, the originality of his discoveries and breakthroughs. Instead, they focused exclusively on the absence of information concerning (i) his experience with graduate and postgraduate students and (ii) his research funding. The complainant admitted that these categories figured in the Guide for applicants. However, they related to the points to be addressed under Part B1a as categories which, in his view, could (but did not have to) be included[11]. He also pointed to the section 'Who would be a competitive candidate' in the Guide for applicants, and submitted that none of the categories used by the evaluators were mentioned there[12]. Furthermore, he suggested that student supervision and the amount of funding obtained were in any event unrelated to actual scientific excellence. The instructions for Part B1a did not suggest that the evaluation could limit itself to the aspects mentioned there while disregarding the main benchmarks of excellence listed in the section entitled 'Who would be a competitive candidate'.

33. The complainant also provided reviews of research proposals he and two other colleagues had submitted to a US funding body, in 2005, 2006 and 2007. He put forward that the last of these applications was almost identical to the one he presented to ERC in 2009. The complainant argued that the innovation and significance of the method put forward by him was not questioned in those other evaluations.

The Ombudsman's assessment

As regards the eligibility of the proposal and the related claim

34. The abstract, which the complainant inserted in Part B1, was about half a page long. The crucial question is thus whether the presence of this text entitled ERCEA to consider the complainant's proposal as complete.

35. The ERC Rules for submission provide that incomplete proposals are ineligible. However, they also specify that the "completeness of the information contained in the proposal will be for the peer review experts to evaluate: the eligibility checks only concern the presence of the appropriate parts of the proposal."[13] It follows, therefore, that there is a division of tasks between ERCEA and the evaluators. The former verifies that a proposal contains the relevant parts, whereas the substantive assessment on the completeness of the information in a proposal is reserved for the evaluators.

36. The Commission stated that the complainant's abstract met the formal requirements for an 'extended synopsis' (see paragraph 2 above) because it did not go beyond the maximum length and summarised the proposal. The complainant questioned this conclusion, pointing to the brevity of the text and the fact that researchers tend to make use of every line available. However, it should be noted that applicants are free to decide on the length of the extended synopsis provided they do not exceed the limit of five pages. Assessing whether a given text constitutes a proper 'extended synopsis' would go beyond the role assigned to ERCEA at that stage of the procedure. ERCEA was therefore correct to consider that the complainant's proposal was complete in the above-mentioned formal sense. It is useful to recall that the complainant himself argued that the abstract was sufficient to ascertain the groundbreaking nature of his proposal.

37. The complainant also put forward that he was not aware of the fact that the 'extended synopsis' was missing and that ERCEA should have drawn his attention to that fact when he could still withdraw his application. The Ombudsman considers that the responsibility for an application has to lie first and foremost with the applicant. The complainant did not challenge the Commission's statement that proposals were accessible to applicants a month after the submission deadline. It is thus clear that the complainant could easily have checked whether his proposal contained a proper 'extended synopsis'. The fact that the complainant did not avail himself of this possibility is not ERCEA's or the Commission's responsibility.

38. The complainant also argued that the evaluators themselves commented on the absence of a proper 'extended synopsis'. It is true that, in his individual assessment, one of the evaluators took the view that there was no such document. However, the fact remains that the evaluators jointly decided to proceed to an evaluation, that is to say, to consider the proposal complete.

39. In light of the preceding points, the Ombudsman concludes that ERCEA's decision to consider the complainant's proposal eligible was reasonable. Therefore, no maladministration can be established in relation to the first allegation.

As regards the substantive evaluation

40. The complainant's second allegation concerns the allegedly unsatisfactory assessment of his proposal. In support of this allegation, the complainant put forward a number of arguments. Some of these were mentioned in his redress request and complaint, whereas certain others were raised in their present form only in his observations.

41. For the sake of coherence, the Ombudsman considers it useful to address the complainant's arguments on the basis of whether they concern the first criterion, which relates to the principal investigator applying for funding, the second criterion concerning the assessment of the research proposal, or general issues. Therefore, under the first criterion, the Ombudsman will deal with the arguments that (i) the evaluators assessed the complainant's principal investigator profile based on a bibliometrical approach; (ii) the evaluators invoked indirect criteria of leadership that are not mentioned or explained in any ERC document; (iii) the elements relied on for assessing the first criterion were not suitable for assessing a researcher's profile; and (iv) due to their laziness and incompetence, the evaluators ignored the many direct indicators of his scientific excellence and focused only on his leaving out details about his successes with graduate and postgraduate students as well as research funding.

42. As regards the second criterion, the complainant (v) argued that the evaluators did not address all of the possible aspects for evaluating this criterion; (vi) challenged the comments of Evaluator 1; (vii) expressed the view that his groundbreaking proposal was not given proper consideration; and (viii) submitted that the evaluators made generic and "animus-driven" comments on the basis of his abstract.

43. In addition, the complainant also put forward that: the evaluators (ix) lacked the necessary mathematical and statistical expertise correctly to evaluate his proposal; and (x) acted dishonestly and fraudulently.

44. As regards arguments (i) and (ii), the complainant criticised the evaluators' comments relating to his lack of experience with graduate and postgraduate students and the amount of research funding the complainant had received in the past.

45. The Ombudsman considers that the starting point for taking a view on how the complainant's principal investigator profile was assessed should be the section outlining the appraisal to be made in the context of that criterion. The points to be considered were set out in point 4.9 of the ERC Work Programme 2009 and reproduced in the Guide for applicants as follows:

"1. Principal Investigator

Quality of research output/track-record: How well qualified is the Principal Investigator ... to conduct the project (reviewers are expected to evaluate the quality of the prior work such as published results in top peer review journals as well as other elements of the Principal Investigator’s CV).

To what extent are the publications and achievements of the Principal Investigator groundbreaking and demonstrative of independent creative thinking and capacity to go significantly beyond the state of the art?

To what extent does the quality and quantity of funding the Principal Investigator has attracted during the last ten years demonstrate his/her reputation as a performer of groundbreaking research?

Intellectual capacity and creativity: To what extent does the Principal Investigator's record of research, collaborations, project conception, supervision of students and publications demonstrate that he/she is able to confront major research challenges in the field, and to initiate new productive lines of thinking?"

46. From the above, it is apparent that the considerations which the complainant objects to are expressly mentioned as aspects on which to mark the principal investigator profile. Furthermore, it is also clear from the above text that a researcher's published output, and the impact that it has in the scientific community, have a significant bearing on the evaluation. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration with regard to arguments (i) and (ii).

47. As regards argument (iii), the complainant stated that examining citations of published articles, an applicant's experience in graduate or postgraduate supervision and whether he/she has obtained research funding are unsuitable methods of assessing someone's scientific excellence. The Ombudsman takes the view that there could only be maladministration if the approach adopted by the evaluators was manifestly unsuitable to assess the applicants' scientific profiles. However, the Ombudsman does not believe that this was the case. It is not unreasonable to consider that publications in major peer-reviewed journals, the supervision of graduate and postgraduate students and the amount of funding obtained by a scientist can be possible indicators of scientific excellence. Against this background, the Ombudsman considers that argument (iii) is not well-founded.

48. The complainant further argued (iv) that, due to their laziness and incompetence, the evaluators ignored the many direct indicators of his scientific excellence, such as the originality of his discoveries and breakthroughs. Instead, they focused merely on issues such as his supervision of graduate and postgraduate students and the amount of his previous research funding. As explained above, the evaluators had to assess the complainant's scientific achievements on the basis of the aspects listed for each of the evaluation criteria. Their assessment of the complainant's scientific impact was based on their particular expertise in the scientific areas covered by the Life Sciences 2 panel[14]. Moreover, the evaluators did not just address the supervision of students and research funding, but also commented on the complainant's curriculum vitae and his publications. The present argument thus also concerns the substance of the scientific assessment carried out by the evaluators. Given the margin of discretion that is inherent in such evaluations, the Ombudsman considers that there would only be maladministration if it could be shown that the evaluation was vitiated by a manifest error. The Ombudsman also considers that the complainant has not established that such an error occurred in the present case. Therefore, he finds no maladministration with regard to argument (iv).

49. In argument (v), the complainant put forward that the evaluators did not address all of the possible aspects for evaluating the second criterion, such as the ground-breaking nature of the proposed research, its potential scientific impact, its methodological feasibility or its potential to deliver a breakthrough by means of a fully novel approach. The Ombudsman notes that the instructions for evaluators stated that they should provide succinct, but substantive comments, which should address the key strengths and weaknesses of a proposal in light of the relevant criteria. They do not stipulate that the evaluators needed explicitly to address each individual aspect for evaluating the second criterion[15]. Moreover, even though the complainant considers that his abstract was sufficient to establish the ground-breaking nature of the proposed research, its potential scientific impact, its methodological feasibility and its potential to deliver a breakthrough by means of a fully novel approach, the evaluators still took the view that they [...]. The Ombudsman considers that the complainant has not shown that this conclusion was due to a manifest error. No maladministration can thus be established in respect of argument (v).

50. As regards the complainant's argument (vi) that the comments made by Evaluator 1 were erroneous, it appears useful to note that the evaluation was ultimately carried out jointly by the evaluators. As the evaluation report notes, "[...]"[16] It thus follows that the evaluators' individual views merely formed the starting point for the discussion within the panel. It was this discussion that resulted in the panel comments and final recommendation. Besides, even though the complainant might not agree with the views expressed by Evaluator 1, the Ombudsman cannot detect any manifest error in this respect. The complainant emphasised that he mentioned the word "jackknifed" only in his scientific leadership profile section. However, the fact that Evaluator 1 might have tried to get a better background understanding of the information contained in the complainant's abstract from the aforementioned section cannot be considered unreasonable in the circumstances of this case. Therefore, no maladministration can be established with regard to this argument.

51. As regards the complainant's argument (vii) that his outstanding and ground-breaking research proposal might not have been given proper consideration, it appears useful to note that the ERC Work Programme 2009 provides that the applicants for Advanced Grants should normally be active researchers with a track-record of significant research achievements and publications over the last 10 years. In the absence of such a track-record, there was thus little prospect of an applicant succeeding. However, it is nevertheless clear that there was a possibility for an applicant, who could not show such a track-record but who had a truly groundbreaking and original proposal, could obtain ERC funding. The assessment as to whether the complainant's proposal was of such a nature was subject to a scientific evaluation. Even though the complainant disagrees with the evaluators' conclusions in this regard, the Ombudsman considers that the complainant has not established that this conclusion was based on a manifest error. Even if the significance and innovation of basically the same proposal had been assessed positively by a US group of experts, this alone could not show that maladministration had taken place in the case at hand. In fact, separate funding programmes are not necessarily comparable. The US group of experts may well have had more information at its disposal than the evaluators in the present case, who had to base themselves on part B1 of the complainant's application, that is, the part containing the abstract and information on the complainant's professional background, but not the entire proposal. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot find any maladministration with regard to this argument either.

52. As regards argument (viii), namely, that the evaluators made generic and "animus-driven" comments, the Ombudsman understands that the complainant suggested that the evaluators made ill-intended comments towards him. However, it is inherent in an evaluation that statements will be made which are either positive or negative. After examining all the evidence available to him, the Ombudsman concludes that the comments made by the evaluators in the present case, individually as well as jointly, were neither impolite nor derogatory. What is more, since the majority of the evaluators' individual comments can be linked to specific parts of Part B1 of the complainant's proposal, the Ombudsman cannot agree with the complainant's view that they are generic or that the evaluators did not read the proposal properly. This argument thus has to be rejected.

53. With regard to argument (ix), namely, that the evaluators did not have the required expertise in mathematics and statistics to evaluate his proposal correctly, it should be recalled that it was the complainant who chose the Life Science 2 panel. He outlined that this was because his research proposal would benefit the very areas covered by the panel. There is nothing to suggest that the evaluators did not have the knowledge necessary to evaluate proposals falling within this sector. If the complainant considered that the mathematical and statistical elements of his proposal were more important than those pertaining to life sciences, he could have chosen another panel, for example the Physical Sciences and Engineering 1 panel[17]. In any event, the evaluators' comments do not suggest that they had difficulties understanding the complainant's proposal. They rather indicate that the information provided in the complainant’s abstract was not sufficient "[to ...]". Therefore, the Ombudsman finds that argument (ix) is not well-founded either.

54. The complainant further submitted (x) that the evaluators acted dishonestly and fraudulently, which is a serious accusation. However, the complainant has not submitted any evidence to support this accusation. It appears that the complainant's comments to that effect are essentially based on his view concerning how his application should have been substantively assessed. However, as noted above, the Ombudsman did not find any maladministration as regards the evaluation of the complainant's proposal. The complainant's accusation of dishonesty and fraudulent behaviour on the part of the evaluators is thus clearly unfounded.

55. In view of the above findings, no maladministration can be found as regards the allegation that the evaluation of the complainant's proposal was substantively unsatisfactory.

As regards the Redress Committee's alleged failure to address the complainant's arguments

56. The complainant alleged that the Redress Committee did not address his challenges to the evaluators' comments. In his view, the Commission was hiding behind rules that did not allow such comments to be called into question.

57. However, it emerges from the arguments put forward by the Commission that the powers of the Redress Committee are limited to ascertaining whether any procedural mistakes occurred in the evaluation of a proposal. Therefore, the Redress Committee was not empowered to discuss the substance of the comments made by the evaluators or to carry out a review of the proposal. The Redress Committee informed the complainant that his proposal had been checked by experts with a relevant scientific background and that it had correctly been considered eligible. Moreover, during the inquiry, the Commission explained that the Redress Committee discussed the complainant's redress request at two meetings and asked ERCEA's legal department for an opinion. In view of the above, the Ombudsman finds that the Redress Committee, to the extent that it was able to, dealt with the complainant's request for redress in a satisfactory manner. Therefore, no maladministration can be established with regard to the third allegation.

58. The Ombudsman understands that the complainant wanted the substance of the evaluators' conclusions to be analysed and felt that it was not satisfactory that a request for redress only led to an examination of procedural issues. The Ombudsman will keep this issue under review in order to decide whether it would be useful to conduct an own-initiative investigation into the mandate for review conferred upon the Redress Committee. However, given that no manifest error was found as regards the substantive evaluation of the complainant's proposal, no further action is necessary in the present case.

As regards the claims

59. Given that no maladministration has been found with respect to the allegations put forward by the complainant, the complainant's related claims cannot succeed either.

B. Conclusions

On the basis of his inquiry into this complaint, the Ombudsman closes it with the following conclusion:

No maladministration has been established in the present complaint.

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

 

P. Nikiforos Diamandouros

Done in Strasbourg on 16 June 2011

---

[*] The Commission marked certain documents as confidential, which could only be disclosed to the complainant, but not to third parties. Whilst the complainant thus received a decision containing the confidential information, this had to be taken out for the publication on the Ombudsman's website. Where this was done, square brackets were inserted in the text.

[1] See pages 51-66 of the December 2008 version of the Guide for applicants, available at: http://cordis.europa.eu

[2] OJ L 400, p. 243.

[3] OJ L 391, p.1.

[4] Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, p.1.

[5] C(2008)3673 of 23 July 2008.

[6] Commission Decisions C(2007) 2286 of 6 June 2007 and C(2007) 4429 of 27 September 2007.

[7] In its version of 11 March 2009, available at: http://cordis.europa.eu

[8] This is an internal document used by the Commission.

[9] Point 4.4 ('Profile of the ERC Advanced Grant applicant') of ERC Work Programme 2009, page 21.

[10] Point 4.5 ('ERC Advanced Grant proposal description') of ERC Work Programme 2009, page 22.

[11] In this context, the complainant appeared to base himself on the Guide for applicants, page 64, which explains what should be contained in the proposal for part B1a. The same information is also contained in point 4.5 of the ERC Work Programme 2009.

[12] In his observations, the complainant referred to page 39, whereas the section referred to is on page 49 of the Guide for applicants. It appears useful to note that the same information is contained in point 4.4 of the ERC Work Programme 2009.

[13] Essentially the same information figures in the ERC Work Programme 2009 and the Guide for applicants, and refers to the text in the ERC Rules for submissions reproduced above.

[14] The Life Science 2 panel covers the following scientific areas of research: genomics, comparative genomics, functional genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, glycomics, molecular genetics, reverse genetics and RNAi, quantitative genetics, epigenetic, and gene regulation, genetic epidemiology, bioinformatics, computational biology, biostatistics, systems biology, biological systems analysis, modelling and simulation.

[15] See ERC Grant Schemes Guide for Peer Reviewers, page 7.

[16] An introductory and explanatory text to the evaluation summary confirms this by stating that "[...]"

[17] The Physical Sciences and Engineering 1 panel covered "all areas of mathematics, pure and applied, mathematical foundations of computer science, mathematical physics and statistics".