Dear Mr. L.,
Dear Mr. M.,
On 24 October 1997, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission. In your complaint, you claimed that the Commission had failed to deal properly with the application you made to it for grants.
On 2 December 1997, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 25 February 1998 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which I received on 28 April 1998.
I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

The background to the complaint is in substance, the following:
The complainants alleged that the Commission failed to reply in writing to their application for grants and to give reasons for rejecting the application.
The complainants initiated an exchange project for young people. They submitted their project to the Commission in order to receive a grant from the SOCRATES Programme on Open Distanced Learning (ODL). The application was made on a standard form. On this form, the Max Hueber Verlag is mentioned as applying body. Mr. Wolf Dieter Eggert was named its managing director, and Mr. Werner Bönzli as coordinator of the exchange project.
Under point 5 of the standard form, which indicates "the person(s) who undertake the preparatory visit (participants)", one of the complainants is named. In an additional letter to the Commission, the second complainant is mentioned as a participant in the preparatory visit.
The complainants did not receive any written reply to the application from the Commission. They telephoned the Commission and they were informed by a Commission official that the project could not be funded.
Against this background, the complainants lodged the complaint with the European Ombudsman. They alleged that the following constitute instances of maladministration:
- the failure to respond in writing to the complainant's application for grants,
- the failure to provide reasons for the refusal.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion
In its opinion, the Commission in substance stated the following:
The Commission is not obliged to reply to the complainants as they were neither mentioned as head of the establishment "Max Hueber Verlag", nor were they mentioned as visit coordinator, who was the contact person for the Commission. The complainants were only mentioned as participants in the visits. The Commission formally replied to the coordinator of the project, Mr. Bönzli.
As regards the second allegation, the Commission stated that in the telephone conversation of 13 December 1996 with one of the complainants, the complainant was given the reasons for the refusal of their project. It was rejected because there was a lack of connection between the foreseen activities during the visit and the aims of the ODL action in accordance with the guidelines for applicants of 1996. These reasons were mentioned to the coordinator in the letter of refusal.
The complainants were provided with additional information about the procedure for the submitting and the handling of the applications and were given the opportunity to discuss the matter further.
The complainants' observations
In their observations, the complainants maintained their complaint.

THE DECISION

1 According to the application form, "Max Hueber Verlag" was the applying authority and Mr. Bönzli was the coordinator of the project. The complainants were listed under the point 'participants'.
The coordinator who was nominated as contact person with the Commission was Mr. Bönzli and not one of the complainants. It is therefore correct that Mr. Bönzli and not the complainants were informed in writing about the result of the application procedure. The Ombudsman therefore considers that there are no grounds to investigate further into this aspect of the complaint.
2 In principle, decisions by an authority to reject an application must state the conditions which have not been fulfilled. The coordinator of the project, Mr. Bönzli, received a reasoned letter from the Commission. Furthermore, the coordinator was given the opportunity of a more detailed conversation on the matter, if he so wished.
Even though the Commission was not obliged to respond officially to the complainants, the Commission was prepared to inform them about the details of its response.
3 On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Commission. The Ombudsman has therefore decided to close the case.
The President of the European Commission will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely
Jacob SÖDERMAN