Dear Mr M.,

On 11 September 2001, you submitted, acting on behalf of the Verschwisterungsverein Reichelsheim e.V., a complaint against the European Commission concerning the latter's handling of an application for a grant towards a town-twinning project.

On 18 September 2001, I forwarded the complaint to the Commission for its comments.

The Commission sent its opinion on your complaint on 7 November 2001. I forwarded the Commission's opinion to you on 13 November 2001 with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. On 18 December 2001, you sent me your observations on the Commission's opinion.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant is the town-twinning committee of a German commune that applied for a Community grant towards a town-twinning project. The application was lodged on 1 August 2001. On 20 August 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 towns were missing and since no detailed budget setting out the unit costs had been provided.

In its complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant claimed that the Commission was not entitled to base its decision on these purely formal grounds. It further submitted the documents that had been missing in its application to the Commission.

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) in two respects. First, the budget included in the application had not been "accompanied by details of expenditure and income, stating unit costs", as required by point 7.1.b) of the above-mentioned text. This information was indispensable for the handling of the application, since it was only on this base that the selection committee could decide whether the proposed expenditure was eligible for Community funding. Second, "the organisation's bank details" required by point 7.1.d) of the call for proposals had not been included in the application. This data was indispensable for the rapid and complete handling of any application for grants.

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, on the one hand, that all applications submitted within the framework of the same phase were examined by the same selection committee and, on the other hand, that the applications that had been accepted were handled rapidly, to the benefit of applicants who had submitted a complete application in accordance with the rules set out in the call for proposals.

The complainant's observations

In its observations, the complainant reiterated its view that the application had been rejected for purely formal reasons. It further stressed that the missing data had been provided subsequently without any delay. The complainant also noted that unit costs do not need to be indicated in the future.

THE DECISION

1 Unfair rejection of application

1.1 The complainant, the town-twinning committee of a German commune, applied for a Community grant for a town-twinning measure. The application lodged on 1 August 2001 was rejected by the Commission on 20 August 2001 on the grounds that the bank details of both the host town and the guest towns were missing and that no detailed budget setting out the unit costs had been provided. The complainant considers that the Commission was not entitled to base its decision on these purely formal grounds.

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 budget included in the application had not been "accompanied by details of expenditure and income, stating unit costs", as required by point 7.1.b) of the above-mentioned text, and 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 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, on the one hand, that all applications submitted within the framework of the same phase were examined by the same selection committee and, on the other hand, that the applications that had been accepted were handled rapidly, to the benefit of applicants who had submitted a complete application in accordance with the rules set out in the call for proposals.

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 was not "accompanied by details of expenditure and income, stating unit costs" and 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. 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.