Strasbourg, 25 May 2005

Dear Mr W.,

On 6 May 2004, you lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman against the European Commission concerning the allegedly unfair rejection of your applications for funding to the Socrates programme involving projects aimed at supporting people with disabilities.

On 28 June 2004, I informed the President of the European Commission of this complaint and I asked him to submit an opinion. On 24 September 2004, I received the Commission's opinion, which I forwarded to you on 14 October 2004 with an invitation to make observations.

On 18 October 2004, you submitted your observations on the Commission's opinion.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The facts of the case according to the complainant are, in summary, as follows:

The complainant works for the Staffordshire County Council as an external funding coordinator, advising on matters pertaining to disability employment. In that capacity, he submitted two separate applications for funding to the EU-funded Socrates programme. His applications involved projects to support and assist disabled people which were to be developed by a number of different partners from five European countries.

The complainant argued that, even though the national agencies responsible for the programme had given a positive advice on the projects, the Commission rejected both applications on the basis of mere technical details. The complainant considered that these decisions were unfair, since the initial appraisal of the projects by the responsible national authorities had been very positive. He took the view that the Commission's refusal was due to the fact that his projects aimed at the promotion of disabled people. The complainant therefore considered that these decisions were discriminatory against people with disabilities.

He noted that, at the same time as the Commission had rejected his projects, its services were asking him for initiatives aimed at identifying the needs of disabled people. In the complainant's view, the nature and timing of this request proved a lack of coordination between the Commission services.

In the light of the available information, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry against the Commission. The allegation on which the Ombudsman asked the Commission to submit an opinion was the following:

The complainant alleges, in summary, that the refusal of his bids discriminated against disabled people.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion of 24 September 2004, the Commission argued that the two applications sent by the complainant in 2003 and 2004 were rejected on adequate grounds. The institution recalled the main facts of the case.

In 2003, the complainant submitted a pre-proposal under the Socrates Call for Proposals ("Grundtvig 1: European Cooperation Projects") which was selected at the pre-proposal stage. He was consequently invited to submit a complete application by 1 March 2003, as set out in the programme's Call for Proposals. As no reply was received by this deadline, the project could not be assessed or approved in 2003.

In 2004, the complainant submitted another pre-proposal which was not selected at the preliminary stage. The complainant wrote to the Commission on 24 March 2004 expressing his regret at the rejection of his proposal. The Commission replied to the complainant’s letter on 4 June 2004.

The Commission's opinion addressed the different allegations put forward by the complainant.

As regards the fact that the Commission may have set aside a positive assessment of the complainant's projects by the national authorities, the institution noted that the quality of the applications was assessed more positively by the European experts than by the national authorities, which only had an advisory role.

The Commission explained that the complainant’s 2003 application could not be taken into consideration because its services never received a full proposal by the specified deadline. This failure did not simply constitute a mere technicality, since it was essential that all applications adhered to the specified deadlines and application procedures in the interest of ensuring complete equality of treatment of all applicants.

As regards the complainant’s 2004 pre-proposal, the application was rejected because, despite the undisputed value of the project’s underlying idea, it revealed various shortcomings, some of them clearly outlined in the assessment made by the British authorities, such as its design and presentation, as well as its predominantly vocational orientation.

The institution added that the proposal's methodological approach was not sufficiently specified, particularly as regards the description of the role of researchers in the development and delivery of learning opportunities for disabled people. More generally, the pedagogical concept was felt to be in need of some improvement or refinement. The potential benefits to disabled people as a whole could be discerned, but it was not sufficiently clear how the participants in the course could benefit. Thus, the indication that the participants would profit through enhanced employment opportunities was not spelt out sufficiently for it to serve as a real basis for judgement. The Commission considered that the vocational orientation of the project made it less suited for consideration within the Socrates programme, and that other EU programmes, such as the "Leonardo da Vinci", could better cater for the type of activities proposed by the complainant.

The Commission pointed out that the complainant's 2004 pre-proposal was almost identical to that of the previous year. The fact that it was treated more severely in this round was not an indication of unfair treatment. Each selection round is separate, and the pre-proposals compete only against those in the same round. Different external experts assessed the pre-proposals. Moreover, the institution added that, in 2004, the situation had changed considerably in that over 30% more applications were received compared to the previous year. As a result, its services had to be more selective in ensuring that the pre-proposals allowed to pass through into the second round fell clearly within the field addressed by this Socrates action. The Commission enclosed with its opinion a copy of the assessment which had been carried out on the complainant's 2004 application by the responsible experts.

The Commission therefore concluded that the complainant's applications were rejected for justified reasons, and that no unfair treatment or discrimination against disabled people had taken place in the selection process, as illustrated by the substantial number of projects selected each year addressing disabled people’s needs. The Commission’s services suggested to the complainant, in a communication of 1 November 2004, that he should take on board the views expressed by the assessors and develop a non-vocational adult learning dimension in the project in order to have a better chance of succeeding in the next selection round. Such an application would be treated entirely on its merits, in competition with all other applications in the same selection round.

The complainant's observations

In his observations on the Commission's opinion, the complainant thanked the Ombudsman for the efforts undertaken on his behalf. He pointed out, however, that he did not wish to pursue the question of the grant applications.

In the complainant's view, the issue at stake was not that the projects he submitted had been rejected, but rather that the different Commission services did not appear to link up. He explained that, at the same time he was told that his projects were rejected, the Commissioner responsible for another Directorate General was publicly asking for ways to overcome the very same issues which the complainant's projects addressed.

THE DECISION

1 Alleged discrimination against disabled people in the rejection of funding applications

1.1 The complainant submitted two applications to the Commission for funding to the EU-funded Socrates programme for two projects aimed at supporting and assisting disabled people. According to the complainant, both applications were rejected on the grounds that they did not comply with a number of technical details.

The complainant alleges, in summary, that the refusal of his bids discriminated against disabled people.

1.2 The Commission argues that the complainant's applications in 2003 and 2004 were rejected for a number of valid reasons, and that no unfair treatment or discrimination against disabled people took place in the selection procedure.

As regards the complainant’s 2003 application, the institution explained that its services never received a full proposal before the specified deadline, and pointed out that this failure did not simply constitute a mere technicality. As for the 2004 pre-proposal, the institution noted that it was rejected because of the shortcomings involving its design and presentation, as well as its predominantly vocational orientation, which was not in line with the programme's criteria.

1.3 The Ombudsman has carefully examined the Commission's reasoning as regards the review of the complainant's applications.

From the available information, it appears undisputed that, in 2003, the complainant submitted a preliminary application for funding to the EU Socrates programme, which was initially retained. Having successfully passed this first stage of the selection procedure, the institution invited the complainant to submit a formal full application. There is no evidence that the complainant replied to that invitation by sending the requested application.

The Ombudsman notes that, in 2004, the complainant once again sent a preliminary application for funding to the EU Socrates programme which, at the end of the first selection round, was not selected. The Commission has put forward a number of reasons in support of its decision. The Ombudsman notes that the Commission's reasoning appears to be supported by the contents of the initial assessment of the project carried out by the responsible experts, a copy of which was enclosed with the Commission's opinion.

The Ombudsman also notes that the Commission informed the complainant of the reasons why it did not accept the complainant's proposals, in particular in its letter of 4 June 2004.

1.4 In view of the above considerations, the Ombudsman finds that there appears to be no evidence which may lead him to believe that the Commission's decisions not to select the funding applications submitted by the complainant constituted a disguised discrimination against disabled people, or were otherwise affected by maladministration. The Ombudsman therefore concludes that the inquiry has not revealed an instance of maladministration.

1.5 The Ombudsman is mindful of the fact that the complainant appears to be concerned by an alleged failure on the part of the Commission to properly coordinate the initiatives taken by its services in order to promote the integration of disabled people. The Ombudsman does not consider, however, that the fact that the Commission was seeking advice on the very issues addressed by the complainant’s unsuccessful funding applications necessarily indicates lack of coordination by the Commission. The Ombudsman notes in this context that the Commission has encouraged the complainant take on board the views expressed by the assessors and to develop a non-vocational adult learning dimension in the project in order to have a better chance of succeeding in the next selection round.

The Ombudsman also points out that the own-initiative inquiry OI/3/2003 is reviewing the measures implemented by the Commission to ensure that persons with disabilities are not discriminated against in their relations with the institution.

2 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the Commission. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The President of the Commission will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS