Dear Mr P.,

On 21 May 2002, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission, on behalf of "Asociación Juvenil 8mm". The complaint concerned the allegedly inadequate assessment on the part of the Commission of two projects you had submitted for Community funding (PS/2002/158 and PS/2002/132).

On 19 June 2002, I sent your complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 31 July 2002, and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. No observations appear to have been received from you.

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

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the facts were as follows:

The complainant, on behalf of "Asociación Juvenil 8mm", had requested Community assistance from the Commission's DG Education and Culture (DG EAC) for two projects (PS/2002/158 and PS/2002/132). His projects as well as the ensuing correspondence had been presented in Spanish. All replies and information sent by the responsible Commission services to the complainant were, however, drafted in French. As a result of the complainant's difficulty to understand these exchanges, he tried to get in contact with the official in charge of the projects, and find out the stage of the selection procedure. Despite his numerous attempts, his efforts were unsuccessful.

On 14 May 2002, the complainant received an e-mail from the Commission informing him that following the first screening of proposals, the programme's Selection Committee had decided not to retain any of his projects. The correspondence was drafted in French.

In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that his projects could not have been understood and subsequently properly assessed by the responsible Commission services.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion, the Commission first described the factual elements of the case. It recalled that the complainant requested financial assistance from the Civil Society programme which supports, among others, initiatives to foster debate and reflection carried out by associations or federations with European interest.

The Commission explained in detail the procedure for the selection of projects. It underlined that the assessment of projects was carried out by independent evaluators with a solid knowledge of the language in which each application had been drafted. The institution added that once those assessments were completed, the programme's Selection Committee reviewed the evaluators' work. The Committee has to ensure that each project complies with the criteria set out in the Programme's Call for Proposals. The Commission underscored that the Committee's tasks were carried out objectively and transparently.

The institution explained that the Selection Committee thoroughly checked whether the projects submitted by the complainant (PS/2002/132 and PS/2002/158) complied with the conditions set out in Call for Proposals n° 61/01. The Committee concluded that neither met the necessary criteria. The complainant was informed of the Committee's decision by a letter dated 7 May 2002 which was written in French. The Commission acknowledged that the letter was not drafted in the language of the complainant. It added, however, that the Head of Unit responsible for the programme had written to the complainant on 28 May 2002, this time in Spanish, justifying the use of French in the Commission's previous correspondence. The letter explained that replies to requests for assistance were being drafted only in French, English and German in order to limit, as much as possible, potential delays. It pointed out that any further correspondence or request for information was carried out in the language of the citizen.

The Commission then referred to each of the projects submitted by the complainant, and explained the reasons for their rejection. As regards project PS/2002/132, the institution indicated that (i) its subject-matter was not among those referred to in the Call for Proposals, (ii) the dates foreseen for the implementation of the work were clearly incorrect, and (iii) there were disagreements and missing information concerning the amount of assistance requested. As for project PS/2002/158, the Commission noted that, (i) the necessary number of copies had not been furnished, (ii) the dates for the work had also been mixed up, and (iii) the financial part of the proposal had not been signed as indicated in the Call for Proposals.

The complainant's observations

To date no observations have been received from the complainant.

THE DECISION

1 Commission's assessment of the complainant's projects

1.1 The complainant alleges that his projects could not have been understood and subsequently properly assessed by the responsible Commission services. He had reached this conclusion on the grounds that all replies and information sent to him by the responsible Commission services were drafted in French, notwithstanding that both his projects and ensuing queries were written in Spanish.

1.2 The Commission argued that the Selection Committee thoroughly checked whether the projects submitted by the complainant (PS/2002/132 and PS/2002/158) complied with the conditions set out in Call for Proposals n° 61/01, and concluded that neither of them met the necessary criteria. The institution explained that the work of the Committee had been based on the assessment of independent evaluators with a solid knowledge of the language in which each application had been drafted.

1.3 As Community courts have held, the Commission has a broad discretion with regard to the factors to be taken into account for the purpose of deciding to award a contract following an invitation to tender(1). Review of the actions taken by the Commission in connection to tender procedures is therefore limited to checking that the rules governing the procedure and the statement of reasons are complied with, the facts are correct and there is no manifest error of assessment or misuse of powers(2).

1.4 The Ombudsman notes that in reply to his inquiry, the Commission has offered a detailed explanation of its reasons not to retain the complainant's projects. They include references to particular aspects of these projects such as their subject-matter, missing information concerning the amount of requested assistance, insufficient number of copies provided, incorrect deadlines for the completion of the work, and the lack of signature. These explanations appear to provide an adequate statement for the position taken by the institution.

1.5 The Ombudsman notes that the Commission did not correspond with the complainant in his own language as required by Article 21 EC. However, on the basis of the evidence available from his inquiry, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission has shown that it understood and subsequently properly assessed the complainant's project. The Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration by the Commission as regards the complainant's allegation that his project was not properly understood and assessed.

2 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) Case 56/77 Agence Européenne d'Interims v Commission [1978] ECR 2215, par. 20; Case T-19/95 Adia Interim v Commission [1996] ECR II-321, par. 49.

(2) Case T-145/98 ADT Projekt v Commission [2000] ECR II-387, par. 147.