Dear Mr C.,

On 13 June 2001, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the Commission's DG for Education and Culture on behalf of the Associazione Italiana Editori (AIE). Your complaint concerned the results of a call for applications launched by the Commission in April 2000, as part of the Culture 2000 programme.

On 2 July 2001, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 8 October 2001. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 22 November 2001.

In your observations, you asked when the case was scheduled to be closed, and whether there were any legal steps that you could take to remedy the situation. I replied to these requests for information in my letter of 16 January 2002, in which I also asked you to provide me with a more detailed specification of your claims. You provided this by letter dated 25 February 2002.

On 6 March 2002, I decided to ask the Commission for further information. The Commission sent its second opinion on 2 May 2002, and I forwarded it to you for observations. On 13 June 2002, I received your second set of observations.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant submitted his allegations in June 2001, on behalf of his association. The complaint concerned the result of a call for applications.

Background

In April 2000, the Commission launched a call for applications under the Culture 2000 Programme(1). The call contained a section that referred to three different action-lines under which projects could be financed. A paragraph in this section stated that:

"For the year 2000, priority will be given to cooperation projects which

- propose cultural productions, such as publications, festivals, exhibitions, restoration projects, etc.

- target as broad a public as possible, including young people.

(...)

The 'Priorities for the year 2000' under action line 1 outlined the priorities under four field-categories, one of which was 'books and reading'. The relevant paragraph of this field-category provided the following description of the priorities for cooperation projects :

- projects with an educational focus aiming to publish books and/or multimedia products in several languages, either promoting major European literary trends or concentrating on comparative cultural history of the peoples of Europe, to encourage mutual knowledge and access to culture and reading, particularly for young people or the socially disadvantaged;

- projects focusing on further training of professionals and/or mobility of persons working in the field of books and reading, in the context of transnational cooperation projects".

As for the selection of projects, a section entitled 'Project selection procedure' stated that:

"Projects will be selected by the Commission in accordance with the criteria and priorities of the 'Culture 2000' programme as set out in this call for applications." (P. 22 of the call.)

The present complaint

The complainant had submitted a proposal under the priority 'books and reading' of the Culture 2000 Programme.

On 27 October 2000, the Commission informed the complainant by letter that his proposal had not been rated highly enough to obtain EU financial support. The letter referred to the evaluation of a group of independent experts.

On 28 October 2000, the complainant asked for more details about the evaluation of his proposal. On 18 December 2000, the Commission sent the complainant an email which stated that each proposal concerning 'books and reading' had been evaluated by 15 independent cultural experts, and that only two out of fifteen had been given maximum points to the complainant's proposal.

In February 2001, the list of selected projects was published on the Commission's web-site. The complainant was surprised to see that amongst nineteen selected projects, only six consisted of co-edition, and only five concerned initiatives related to training, all of them for literary translators. He also got the impression that three of the projects were simply a single project divided into three parts in order to bypass the funding-limit for single projects. Furthermore, he could find no projects which were related to training programmes for publishing professionals. Finally, the complainant found that some projects seemed not to relate to the priority 'books and reading'.

The complainant subsequently wrote to the Commission again to complain about the perceived irregularities. On 8 March 2001, the Commission informed the complainant about the rank and score obtained by the complainant's proposals.

In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Commission had funded projects which are ineligible according to the criteria set out in the call for proposals.

The complainant claimed that his project should be funded, since it was the highest ranking project concerning training initiatives specifically addressed to book professionals.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

The complaint was forwarded to the Commission for opinion. The Commission addressed the allegations and arguments of the complainant as follows:

1) "Seven projects seem to have no relationship with the call for applications and are ineligible"

The seven projects in question are: 1) two poetry festivals; 2) 'The state of affairs of literature in Europe 2000'; 3) 'Print on demand: a method to promote diversity'; 4) training of Scandinavian small-scale publishers and creation of a network for exchanging copyright; 5) 'Regards sur l'édition européenne de jeunesse indépendante et de création'; 6) 'New Theatre Network (European theatre network for exchanging play scripts, thereby boosting the dissemination of contemporary works, and developing translation in this area); and 7) 'l'Europe des littératures: European authors meeting in public'.

In the Commission's opinion, most of the above projects in fact reflect the general priority (festivals, cultural events, targeting as broad a public as possible, including young people).

Three others tie in with the priority for 'books and reading': one project for training of publishers (Print on demand). A second project aims to support and encourage contemporary playwrights (New Theatre Network). A third training project targets specialists in the field of literary policy and support for books (The state of affairs of literature in Europe 2000: national book and literature support institutes).

2) "Three projects constitute a single project divided up in order to bypass the maximum funding limit"

In 1999, eleven training sessions for literary translators in eleven countries of the European Union were supported under the Ariane Programme; in 2000, the call for applications under the Culture 2000 Programme stipulated that each project submitted should involve three operators from three participating countries; in 2000, the training of literary translators was consequently organised at three-country level, thereby allowing economies of scale. Three projects were thus presented and selected:

1) British Centre for Literary Translation (Ref. UK 209; 130 beneficiaries; 2) Nederland Literair Produktie en Vertalingenfonds (Ref. NL 34): 120 beneficiaries; 3) Collège International des traducteurs (FR 590); 97 beneficiaries.

It is therefore not the case of one project being divided, but on the contrary entails a pooling of actions.

3) "None of the approved projects relate to publisher training, although this was a priority of the call for proposals"

With regard to co-operation projects in the fields of 'books and reading', there is no explicit reference to publishers, nor is there any stated intention to reserve support for a specific profession. All professionals are targeted.

The complainant's observations

The Commission's opinion was forwarded to the complainant for observations.

In his observations, the complainant maintained his allegations and claim.

With regard to the first part of the Commission's opinion, the complainant's main observation was that the Commission appeared to concede that at least four of the seven projects did not tie in with the priority 'books and reading' when it stated that "Most of the above projects in fact reflect the general priority (festivals, cultural events targeting as broad a public as possible, including young people). Three others tie in with the priority for 'books and reading' ... ". The complainant argued that projects relating only to the general priorities, but not to any of the specific ones, cannot be funded.

With regard to the second part of the Commission's opinion, the complainant noted the Commission's confirmation that the three projects that he considered to be one project constituted a series of co-ordinated projects in the same field.

With regard to the third part of the Commission's opinion, the complainant noted the Commission's point that many other categories than publishers were eligible for funding under 'books and reading'. However, the problem was that no training projects addressed to any of these categories were approved, except - as the complainant had already pointed out - five training projects for literary translators.

Further inquiries

After careful consideration of the Commission's opinion and the complainant's observations, it appeared that further inquiries were necessary.

Request for further information from the complainant

It was first deemed necessary to request the complainant for a more detailed written specification of his claims, i.e. the results that he hoped to obtain from the Ombudsman's inquiry. In his reply, the complainant stated that he wanted the EU-funding, obtained, as the case may be, through friendly solution, recommendation or special report. In case the Ombudsman concluded that the Commission could not remedy the maladministration alleged, he wanted a critical remark.

Request for further information from the Commission

The Ombudsman also considered it necessary to request the Commission for further clarification. The Ombudsman referred to the complainant's observation that the Commission appeared to concede that at least four of the seven projects did not tie in with 'books and reading'. The Commission was requested to clarify this matter.

The Commission's reply

In its reply to the Ombudsman, the Commission referred to the call for applications which contained the phrase "priority will be given to [XYZ subjects]". According to the Commission, this phrase does not mean that the projects which correspond to the subjects listed will automatically qualify for a grant irrespective of the evaluation by the experts and the criteria set out in the call for proposals. The fact that priority is given to certain types of projects means, for instance, that where the group of experts gives two projects the same grading, the Commission must ensure that the project which complies best with the priorities described is selected: where more than one project is given the same grading, preference is given to the project which complies best with the priority.

The fact that the disputed projects do not comply with the specific priority is therefore not unusual: they fall into the category of books and reading, have been given a good grading by experts, meet the criteria set out in the call for proposals and comply with the general priorities. Everything therefore pointed to their being chosen to receive a Culture 2000 grant for co-operation projects in the field of books and reading. Moreover, contrary to the complainant's interpretation of the situation, there is nothing in the call for proposals to indicate that there is an obligation to select projects in the field of training for professionals in the publishing sector if no project of this kind has been given a sufficient grading.

The general and specific priorities are indicative. They are designed to ensure that the proposed projects have particular orientation, which will be given priority consideration when two projects have the same grading. However, this orientation cannot compensate for a project being of poor quality or failing to comply with the criteria set out in the programme. The evaluation by the experts remain the determining factor.

The Commission noted that the field of 'books and reading' is included each year in the open calls for proposals under the Culture 2000 programme. There is therefore nothing to stop the complainant from submitting his project again in response to a new call for applications.

The complainant's observations

The Commission's reply was forwarded to the complainant, who submitted the following observations:

The Commission appears to have changed its argument. With regard to the lack of coherence between some of the funded projects and the call for applications, the Commission initially tried to demonstrate that the approved projects were coherent with the call for applications. Now it states that such coherence is not necessary.

The new opinion from the Commission focuses on the meaning of the word "priority" in the call for applications, stating that it applies only "where more than one project is given the same grading" so that every project related to the general objective of the programme can be funded without respect to the specific objectives of the call for applications. This seems to be in contradiction with the text of the call published in the Official Journal, when it states that "Projects will be selected by the Commission in accordance with the criteria and priorities of the Culture 2000 programme as set out in this call for applications".

According to the proposed interpretation, every kind of project related to the wide range of the programme's objectives can be proposed in every call, and priorities apply only in the very rare cases of two or more projects with the same evaluations by external experts. If this interpretation was correct, the meaning of each call would be very poor : any sort of project can be proposed, and this will result in a very large number of proposals. The Vade-mecum on grant management prepared by the European Commission in 1998, to which the Culture 2000 Website directly refers, states that "A call for proposals [...] will be carefully worded so as to preclude a flood of applications likely to be rejected subsequently". To achieve this objective, the Vade-mecum states, amongst others, that "The calls for proposals will therefore clearly set out [...] the subject of the call for proposals". These criteria contradicted the Commission's interpretation.

In any case, projects to be approved in the action line should be related to 'books and reading'. It is necessary to force the scope of the approved projects to include literature and poetry festivals, and above all the theatre network. It is true that literature, poetry or theatre are frequently topics of books. But following this criterion, agriculture, steel industry and football would be eligible, since there are many books on these topics as well.

THE DECISION

1 Projects with no relation to 'books and reading'

1.1 The complainant alleges that the Commission has funded several projects that seem to have no relationship with the priority here concerned, i.e. 'books and reading';

1.2 The Commission has in its second opinion clarified that it does consider the disputed projects to fall within 'books and reading'.

1.3 The Ombudsman has thoroughly examined the evidence and arguments submitted by the Commission and the complainant. On this basis, and bearing in mind the Commission's wide discretionary powers to select proposals, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission appears to have acted within its legal authority in assessing and selecting the projects. It appears, therefore, that there is no maladministration on the part of the Commission with regard to this aspect of the complaint.

2 Three projects constituting a single project

2.1 The complainant alleges that three projects constitute a single project divided up in order to bypass the maximum funding limit.

2.2 The Commission has explained that it is not the case of one project being divided, but on the contrary a case of actions being pooled.

2.3 In the light of the evidence and arguments submitted in the course of this inquiry, and bearing in mind the Commission's wide discretionary powers, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission's view appears reasonable. It appears, therefore, that there has been no maladministration in regard to this aspect of the complaint.

3 Claim for funding regarding 'training initiatives'

3.1 The complainant claims that his project should be funded, since it was the highest ranking projects concerning training initiatives specifically addressed to book professionals.

3.2 The Commission has responded that while the call for applications does refer to 'training of professionals' in the field of books and reading, there is no explicit reference to publishers, nor is there any stated intention to reserve support for a specific profession.

3.3 Having examined the call for applications, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission's reading of the call seems reasonable. It appears, therefore, that there has been no maladministration on the part of the Commission in regard to this aspect of the complaint.

4 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European 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 L 101, p. 17.