Dear Mrs. B.,
On 23 June and 18 August 1997, you made a complaint on behalf of the German-French Society to the European Ombudsman. You alleged that the European Commission had not properly assessed your application for grants within Action D of the Youth for Europe programme.
On 4 September 1997, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 2 December 1997 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. I did not receive any observations from you.
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 summary the following: The complainant is a registered association which organises exchange programmes for young people. It applied for grants for an exchange programme under the Commission's programme Youth for Europe.
In March 1997, the German office of Youth for Europe informed the complainant orally that its application would get a positive response. In view of the fact that the preparation of the youth exchange programme which was due to take place on 18 to 27 July 1997 involved the timely booking of flights and of accommodation for participants from 5 different countries, including Russia, the complainant did not wait for a confirmation in writing and went ahead with the organisation of the exchange. Two months later, on 26 May 1997, the complainant received a letter from the Commission, in which the complainant was informed that its project could not be funded. The reason given was: "the estimated budget is incoherent with the programme for your activity". The complainant considered that this reason was wrong because its calculation was made very carefully, under full consideration of the relevant grant directives. As no other grant was available for the complainant, the youth exchange project had to be cancelled.
On 20 June 1997, the association therefore complained to the Commission. It criticised in particular the considerable delay and the Commission's reasoning for the refusal of its application and the fact that it was given a positive response which turned out not to correct. In its reply, the Commission admitted that there had been a delay due to a lengthy assessment procedure. Secondly, with regard to the reasons for the refusal, the Commission claimed that the application for grants needed to be directly linked with the cost of the project and that -for financial reasons - it had to tighten the conditions for the selection of the projects. Thirdly, it stated that the complainant should never have relied on the oral information that its project was to be supported, as it was not an official commitment. The complainant was not satisfied with this reply.
Against this background, the complainant lodged the complaint with the European Ombudsman. It alleged that the following constitutes instances of maladministration:
- the considerable delay in dealing with its application for grants,
- the unsatisfactory reasons for the refusal, and
- the fact that the German office of Youth for Europe had given oral confirmation concerning the grant whereas, two months later, the complainant was told by the Commission that its project could not be supported.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion
In its opinion, the Commission in substance stated the following:
Action D of the Youth for Europe programme refers to youth exchanges with Third Countries. The grants requested are submitted to the Youth for Europe National Agencies and sent to the Commission with comments from the National Authorities. The Commission sets up a list of pre-selected projects with the help of a panel composed of representatives of National Agencies and the Youth Forum of the European Union.
As regards the delay in dealing with the complainant's grant application, the Commission admitted that some regrettable delay had occurred. This was due to the fact that the number of projects was exceptionally high. Moreover, there was a large number of very good projects.
As regards the second grievance, the Commission stated that the complainant's description of the application process and the dates were correct. It was informed of the final decision on 16 May 1997. However, the Commission pointed out two reasons why the project application had finally not been successful:

• "After evaluating the projects, the Commission considered that: (...) the estimated budget is incoherent with the programme for your activity;" and
• "Due to budgetary constraints, the Commission was not able to support your projects".

The Commission pointed out that due to the high number of applications and the necessity to respond as rapidly as possible, it was obliged to make use of a standardised response letter. This letter also mentioned the names and the telephone numbers of the contact persons in the Commission and in the Technical Assistance Office for further possible inquiries.
With regard to the third allegation, the Commission put forward that in spite of the confidential nature of the selection procedure, some National Agencies which were contacted by interested parties gave out provisional information regarding the preliminary results of the selection which still had to be finalised. This was interpreted as a positive 'decision' by the complainant. Letters concerning rejected applications were sent out only after the final decision. Nevertheless, a letter was sent to the complainant by the Commission two months before the actual beginning of the planned activities.
In addition to this, the Commission stated that it was aware that some shortcomings in this selection procedure under Action D of the Youth for Europe programme created difficulties and frustrations among the applicants which was regrettable. In order to resolve the difficulties, the Commission stated that it has already introduced measures to inform applicants about its decision immediately and to give comprehensive information. Furthermore, it gave new instructions to the National Agencies.

THE DECISION

1. As regards the first allegation, the Commission regreted the delay in dealing with the complainant's application. It declared that it has taken measures to prevent any such occurrence in the future. The Ombudsman therefore considers that there are no grounds to investigate further into this aspect of the complaint.
2. With regard to the second allegation, it appears that the Commission sent a standard letter to the complainant in which it was informed that "its estimated budget was incoherent with the programme for your activity" and that "due to budgetary constraints, the Commission was not able to support its project".
It is good administrative behaviour to inform applicants about the reasons for the refusal of their projects. In its letter of 18 July 1997, the Commission gave detailed reasons for the refusal. The Commission put forward that it realised in April 1997 that the total costs for all projects qualified to be supported would be higher than the disposable resources. It therefore had to tighten the conditions of the selection. As a result of this measure, 26 projects could no longer be supported. Among them was the complainant's project. In addition to this, the Commission provided the complainant with names and telephone numbers of contact persons at the Commission and at the offices of the National Agencies.
It appears therefore, that the Commission has given the complainant adequate explanation for its decision not to support the project.
3. As regards the third allegation, it is undisputed that the complainant was given information about the possible outcome of the selection procedure by the relevant office in Bonn. The Commission pointed out that part of the pre-selection is carried out by the National Agencies. It also pointed out that these National Agencies are not supposed to give parties information about the procedure before the end of the selection. The complainant therefore should not have been given information about the preliminary results. It appears though that the Commission is aware of possible shortcomings in the selection procedure and that it has introduced new measures to prevent such incidents in the future. One of the measures taken was to give new instructions to the National Agencies in relation to this matter. In view of the fact that the Commission has taken steps to remedy the shortcoming, the Ombudsman considers that there are no grounds to investigate further into this aspect of the complaint.
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