Dear Mrs O.,

On 29 February 2000, you lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman against the European Commission, concerning your application for a Marie Curie Research Training Grant at the Joint Research Centre of Ispra.

On 20 March 2000, I forwarded the complaint to the European Commission for its opinion. The Commission sent the translation into Italian of its opinion on 28 June 2000 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations by the end of September, if you so wished. I have received your observations on 19 September 2000.

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

THE COMPLAINT

In June 1998, the complainant applied for a Marie Curie Research Training Grant at the Joint Research Centre of Ispra (hereinafter JRC). In November 1998, her name was included in the list of potential candidates and in April 1999, the complainant received the "printed proposal form" that she filled out with the description of her project.

The age limit to participate in the selection was 35 years. When she applied in June 1998, the complainant was 37. However, having a six year-old son, she enjoyed a specific clause that foresaw a reduction of three years.

Due to a temporary blockage of all the contracts, the complainant stressed that it was only in November 1999 that a first group of 40 grants were awarded and she was among the beneficiaries. Nevertheless, some weeks later, she was informed that her application could not be accepted because in the meantime the relevant rules, namely the exception concerning the age limit, had been changed and she no longer fulfilled the requirements.

The complainant therefore sent a complaint to the Ombudsman. In her complaint, she made the following allegations:

1) Failure of transparency during the selection procedure carried out by the Commission, because of the fact that the institution applied certain rules concerning the age limit that were not in force when she requested the grant.

2) Failure by the Commission to reply to the complainant's letter sent on 14 December 1999.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion on the complaint, the Commission stated in summary the following:

On 26 April 1994, the European Parliament and the Council adopted a decision concerning the fourth framework programme of the European Community activities in the field of research and technological development and demonstration. The validity of the decision was foreseen until 31 December 1998. In order to carry out its specific programmes, the JRC had the possibility to award two kind of grants, for indirect and for direct action. The complainant applied for a direct action grant, consisting of institutional research activities and institutional scientific and technical support activities.

Concerning the selection procedure of the applications, the Commission explained that it is for the Director general of the JRC to decide on the attribution of the grants, upon advice of the Board of Governors and on the basis of the budgetary availability and of the fulfilment of the respect of the admissibility criteria.

On 9 February 1999, Mr Crandon of the Administrative Unit sent an internal note to the Heads of Unit of the Space Applications Institute. The contents of the letter was the following:

"I enclose the last two lists of grantholders submitted to the Board of Governors for information, with an indication of those candidates still theoretically available. Bearing in mind the budgetary distribution for non-statutory staff according to our project planning, would you please indicate which, if any of these candidates you would like to recruit"

The Commission pointed out that the mere fact to be included in the list of grantholders submitted to the Board of Governors, does not mean that those candidates fulfil all the criteria of admissibility, that have to be checked later on by the JRC's services.

As regards the complainant's application, the Commission pointed out that her name appeared in the list transmitted to the Board of Governors. Afterwards, some of the applicants included in that list, and the complainant herself, were asked to fill in a "Printed Proposal Form for Marie Curie Research Training Grants".

During the assessment of the files carried out by the JRC's services, it resulted that the complainant did not meet the requested criteria that, for the implementation of the Fifth research and technological development program, had been fixed by a Commission decision of 11 November 1999.

Furthermore, the Commission underlined that it never disputed the scientific competences of the complainant who was offered an auxiliary contract from 1 November 1999 to 7 January 2000.

Concerning the alleged failure of reply to the complainant's letter of 14 December 1999, the Commission regretted not to have replied in writing, although it pointed out that the complainant had received the requested information orally, due to her presence at the JRC as auxiliary agent.

The complainant's observations

The Ombudsman forwarded the Commission's opinion to the complainant with an invitation to make observations.

In her observations, the complainant, who basically maintained her allegations, underlined the failure of transparency in the selection procedure carried out by the responsible services.

She reaffirmed the fact that the Commission did not explain the reasons for her exclusion from the group of grantholders. According to the complainant, she was excluded because when her dossier was finally examined, the rules concerning the age conditions had, in the meantime, been changed. However, she was never officially informed accordingly.

THE DECISION

1. The alleged failure of transparency

1.1 The complainant alleged failure of transparency during the selection procedure carried out by the Commission, because of the fact that the institution applied certain rules concerning the age limit that were not in force when she requested the grant.

Moreover, in her observations, the complainant pointed out that the Commission did not give any reasons for her exclusion.

1.2 The Commission explained in its opinion that, according to the relevant rules governing the implementation of the framework programmes of the European Community activities in the field of research and technological development and demonstration, the criteria of admissibility to be awarded for a grant are systematically reviewed for every programme.

1.3 When the complainant's file was assessed by the JRC's services, it resulted that she did not meet the requested criteria for the implementation of the Fifth research and technological development programme, that had been fixed by a Commission decision of 11 November 1999.

1.4 As the Commission has explained, it is for the Director General of the JRC to decide on the attribution of the grants, upon advice of the Board of Governors and on the basis of the budgetary availability and of the fulfilment of the admissibility criteria.

According to the established case-law of Community courts, it is for the appointing authority to assess whether a candidate fulfils the conditions required, and that assessment may be questioned only in the event of manifest error.

1.5 On the basis of the information submitted by the complainant and by the Commission, it does not appear that, when deciding not to assign the grant to the complainant, the appointing authority did not act in accordance with the rules laid down in the relevant regulation, namely the decision of 11 November 1999(1).

1.6 However, it has to be borne in mind that principles of good administration require that every decision of the Institution which may adversely affect the rights or interests of a private person shall state the grounds on which it is based by indicating clearly the relevant facts and the legal basis of the decision(2). This principle has also been expressed in point 3 of the Commission's Code of Good Administrative Behaviour for staff of the European Commission in their relations with the public, entered into force on 1 November 2000(3).

1.7 It appears in this case that the Commission failed to state reasons for the complainant's exclusion, both to the complainant and in its opinion forwarded to the Ombudsman. It only pointed out that the complainant did not fulfil the criteria of admissibility to obtain a grant. The Commission's failure to state reasons constitutes therefore an instance of maladministration.

2 Failure to reply to the complainant's letter

2.1 In her complaint, the complainant alleged that the Commission failed to reply to her letter sent on 14 December 1999.

2.2 In its opinion, the Commission admitted not to have replied to the complainant's letter and regretted it. However, the institution pointed out that the complainant's request was replied to orally, since during that period she was working at the JRC as auxiliary agent.

2.3 It is good administrative behaviour to reply to citizens' letters within due time, as stated in article 13 of the Code proposed by the Ombudsman and also in point 4 of the Commission's Code of Good Administrative Behaviour. It is unquestionable that in this case, the Commission did not reply in writing to the complainant's letter, as it should have done. However, since the institution recognised its failure and regretted it, the Ombudsman does not consider it necessary to pursue the matter further.

3 Conclusion

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

It appears in this case that the Commission failed to state reasons for the complainant's exclusion, both to the complainant and in its opinion forwarded to the Ombudsman. It only pointed out that the complainant did not fulfil the criteria of admissibility to obtain a grant. The Commission's failure to state reasons constitutes therefore 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.

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

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN

---

(1) "The candidate must be of age 35 years or less. However, allowance, in this respect, is made for time actually served in compulsory military or civil service and for childcare with a maximum of two years per child for the actual time spent off work".

(2) The European Ombudsman stated this principle in article 18 (1) of his Code of good administrative bahaviour, of 28 July 1999.

(3) Code of Good Administrative Behaviour http://ec.europa.eu/secretariat_general/code/index_en.htm.