Dear Mr M.,
On 26, 27 and 28 May 1999 you lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman concerning alleged administrative irregularities, unfairness and discrimination in the handling of the PET DEGONAL project proposal submitted in the framework of the MEDIA II - Training Programme and more specifically concerning Call for Proposals 2/99.
On 30 July 1999, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. I received the Commission's opinion on 5 November 1999 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 30 January 2000.
I am writing now to let you know the result of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

Argovela Films submitted a proposal entitled PET DEGONAL in the framework of the MEDIA II - Training Programme. On 28 April 1999, the Commission informed the complainant that the PET DEGONAL project proposal was rejected. In the rejection letter the Commission presented four reasons. According to the Commission, the project was too ambitious and would not provide European added value. Furthermore, it contained a number of erroneous calculations and the unit costs were evaluated too high compared to other training courses. The complainant is of the view that the erroneous calculations in the budget it presented are a minor bureaucratic point and that he does not recall any paragraph in the call for proposals 2/99, which states that all calculations must be perfect.
The complainant made the following allegations:
(i) errors in the evaluation of the length, unit costs and European added value of project proposal PET DEGONAL;
(ii) discrimination and unfairness in relation to the organisation of annual Calls for Proposals;
(iii) awarding of continued funding to pre-determined « centres of excellence ».
Finally, the complainant claims that all awards granted under Call for Proposal 2/99 should be cancelled and that he should be awarded damages.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion
In its opinion, the Commission gave an introduction to the MEDIA II programme and to the MEDIA II - Training, explaining in detail the evaluation methods and specific outcomes. As stated in Council Decision 95/564/EC(1), the MEDIA II - Training programme is managed by the European Commission assisted by four technical assistance offices (Intermediary Organisations). The aim of MEDIA II - Training is to improve professional training in the audiovisual sector and provide a European added value.
The deadline for submission of the proposals in Call for proposals 2/99 was 25 February 1999. The Commission received 67 projects by 51 tenderers. Three panels of experts were held on 23, 24 and 25 March 1999. The Commission chaired their debates. At the end of the selection procedure, the Commission proposed to grant a financial contribution to 35 tenderers organising 47 training projects. The Commission's proposal was presented to the MEDIA Committee in April 1999 and was adopted unanimously by all Member States.
On 28 April 1999 a letter was sent to the complainant explaining why his PET DEGONAL project had not been selected for funding. On 18 May 1999, the complainant replied by fax, to which the Commission in turn replied on 10 June 1999. The complainant wrote again on 27 June 1999.
The Commission, in summary, made the following points on the allegations put forward by the complainant:

(i) As regards the length of the PET DEGONAL project, the Commission contested this allegation as being incorrect. This element was clear in the mind of the Commission and of the Technical Assistance Office. The Commission also contested the allegation that it has erroneously calculated the unit costs. The unit costs referred to were the costs per man-day of the project co-ordination personnel as quoted under point 7.1 of the original application. In his letter to the Commission of 27 June 1999 the complainant stated that, although point 7.1 clearly refers to 8 days, this should be interpreted as 8 weeks because the proposal later states, under point 7.3, that the co-ordinator would have worked for 56 days. Notwithstanding the fact that 56 working days make up over 11 weeks and not 8, this is another example of contradictory information that is symptomatic of the overall quality of the proposal.

As regards the erroneous calculations, the Commission stated that paragraph 10.1 of the guidelines for call for proposals 2/99 states that: "The Commission reserves the right not to consider applications which are not presenting a correct and balanced budget including all requested information, avoiding rounding inaccuracies, omissions, incoherence or overestimations of costs." In the PET DEGONAL proposal there are a number of mistakes or inconsistencies between the budget and the justification. Namely, none of the days listed in the budget correspond to the days listed in the justification.

(ii) The Commisson contested the allegation that the PET DEGONAL proposal was unfairly rejected in favour of another Greek-based project. The Commission stressed that it has always been the policy of MEDIA II - Training to serve the industry professionals and not the training institutions, and that a fair geographical distribution of participating professionals has always been sought rather than a geographical distribution of the training institutions.

The Commission contested the allegation that the entire MEDIA II programme has been delegated to Intermediary Organisations. The Intermediary Organisation was established on the basis of Council Decision 95/564/EC. As stated in the Council Decision, the Intermediary Organisation provides technical assistance and formulates proposals, but does not decide on the choice of beneficiaries.

(iii) The complainant alleged that the Commission awards continued funding to pre-determined centres of excellence. Under point 2.1 of the guidelines for Call for proposals 2/99, « centres of excellence » are clearly defined. The Commission stated that « Centres of excellence » are not predetermined. Rather, the Commission's evaluation of projects and activities funded through MEDIA II - Training leads to certain projects to be identified as « centres of excellence ». The Commission does not decide a priori who the « centres of excellence » are. The selection is made through open calls for proposals every year and the training projects have to present their proposal to be reselected every year and there is no certainty that any given proposal will be reselected in the same format every year. New proposals are selected for funding every year. The Calls for proposals are held annually precisely in order to reassess the projects funded on a yearly basis and to allow for new valid and worthwhile projects to be funded. For example, in 1999 nine new projects were selected and financed out of the 29 new projects presented (31 %).

On the other hand, several training projects have been in receipt of funding from the MEDIA II Programme for more than one year. This is in order to ensure continuity and is the case for training projects that have been evaluated positively when they re-present their proposals every year. The ultimate aim of MEDIA II - Training is not to fund one or another training institution for the sake of it but to train professionals in the European audiovisual industry.

The complainant's observations
In his observations the complainant maintained his complaint.

THE DECISION

1 Alleged errors in the evaluation of the length, unit costs and European added value of the PET DEGONAL project proposal
1.1 The complainant alleges that the Commission erroneously evaluated the length of the proposed project and that, therefore, it has erroneously calculated the unit costs. Furthermore, the complainant claims that the Commission has overlooked the European added value in the PET DEGONAL activity. According to the complainant, the erroneous calculations in its project budget are a minor bureaucratic point.
1.2 The Commission in its opinion has contested the allegations put forward by the complainant.
1.3 The Ombudsman carefully examined the documents transmitted by the Commission and, in particular, Council Decision 95/564/EC the guidelines of the call for proposals 2/99 to which Argovela Films applied. The examination revealed that the PET DEGONAL project did not fulfil some conditions laid down in the guidelines of the call for proposals. The Ombudsman concludes from it that the Commission's decision not to finance the project was well grounded. There appears, therefore, to be no maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint.
2 Alleged discrimination and unfairness in relation to the organisation of annual Calls for Proposals
2.1 The complainant alleges that the Commission unfairly favoured another Greek-based project and that the entire MEDIA II Programme has been delegated to Intermediary Organisations.
2.2 As regards this allegation of unfairness, the Commission contested the allegation. In its opinion, it stressed that it has always been the policy of MEDIA II - Training to serve the industry professionals and not the training institutions, and that a fair geographical distribution of participating professionals has always been sought rather than a geographical distribution of the training institutions.
2.3 As to the allegation that the entire MEDIA II Programme has been delegated to Intermediary Organisations, the Commission contested the allegation. According to the Commission, the Intermediary Organisations provide technical assistance and formulate proposals, but do not decide on the choice of beneficiaries.
2.4 Neither the documents supplied by the complainant nor any other evidence available to the Ombudsman support the claim of unfairness towards PET DEGONAL by the Commission. There appears, therefore, to be no maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint.
3 Alleged awarding of continued funding to pre-determined « Centres of excellence »
3.1 The complainant alleges that the Commission awards continued funding to pre-determined "Centres of excellence".
3.2 According to the Commission, its evaluation of projects and activities funded through the MEDIA II - Training Programme leads to certain projects to be identified as « centres of excellence ». The Commission does not decide a priori who the « centres of excellence » are. The selection is made through open calls for proposals every year and the training projects have to present their proposal to be reselected every year and there is no certainty that any given proposal will be reselected in the same format every year.
3.3 On the basis of the information provided in the guidelines of the call for proposals 2/99 and taking into account that the complainant has not put forward any evidence to the Ombudsman in support of his allegation, there appears to be no maladministration in relation to this aspect of the case.
4 Claim for damages and claim to cancel all awards under Call for Proposal 2/99
4.1 The complainant claims that all awards under Call for proposals 2/99 should be cancelled and presents a claim for damages.
4.2 In view of the European Ombudsman's conclusions in points 1, 2 and 3 of this decision it does not seem justified to pursue the above mentioned claims made by the complainant.
5 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) 95/564/EC : Council Decision of 22 December 1995 on the implementation of a training programme for professionals in the European audiovisual programme industry (MEDIA II - Training). OJ L 321, 30 December 1995.