Strasbourg, 24 September 2007

Dear Mr S.,

On 22 June 2006, acting on behalf of "Fundación Empresa y Calidad", you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Parliament. Your complaint concerned Parliament's decision of 15 May 2006 not to award a grant to the project you had submitted in the framework of the 2006 call for proposals organised by Parliament's Directorate-General for Information.

On 4 July 2006, you submitted additional information.

On 16 August 2006, I informed the President of Parliament of your complaint and asked him to submit an opinion on it by 31 October 2006. On 4 October 2006, Parliament sent its opinion, which was forwarded to you on 31 October 2006, with an invitation to make observations.

On 7, 11 and 12 December 2006, you sent your written observations to me.

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 of the case are, in summary, as follows:

The complainant is the representative of " Fundación Empresa y Calidad" (hereinafter, the "Applicant"), which, on 20 February 2006, submitted a proposal for funding to the European Parliament (reference: "Spirit of Understanding-Web Platform"; INFO/2006/06/16) in the framework of the 2006 call for proposals organised by the Parliament's Directorate-General for Information. The proposal stated that the complainant was the project manager.

On 15 May 2006, Parliament informed the complainant that the proposal for funding had not been successful, because he had not included evidence of the Applicant's operational capacity to run the proposed project throughout its entire duration. Parliament based its assessment on the fact that the complainant appeared to be combining his job as project manager with four other positions, in addition to pursuing a doctoral degree at an open university. As a result, Parliament decided that the project had not, as regards the feasibility criteria, attained the minimum pass-mark of 10 points.

The complainant wrote to Parliament on 30 May 2006, and argued that the reply he received was not properly reasoned. In his view, Parliament could not have properly assessed the project, since the Evaluation Committee had merely considered his CV, without taking into account the feasibility and eligibility of the whole proposal. In its reply of 1 June 2006, Parliament stated that its decision had been taken in accordance with the proper procedure and with due respect for the applicable rules.

The complainant took the view that Parliament's answer did not respond to his query and lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman, in which he enclosed his correspondence with Parliament.

In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant submitted the following allegation and claim:

The complainant alleges that the reasons given by Parliament not to accept his project were inadequate.

In support of his allegation, the complainant argues that Parliament did not assess the content of the proposal, but merely put forward a number of subjective considerations concerning his CV.

The complainant claims that Parliament should carry out a new and thorough review of his proposal.

THE INQUIRY

Parliament's opinion

In its opinion, Parliament explained that the 2006 call for proposals set out how to submit an application for a grant and the procedure to be followed for the evaluation of all proposals received.

Parliament quoted point 3(1) of the text of the call for proposals, which concerned the submission of applications and the procedure for the evaluation of proposals. Parliament also made reference to the selection(2) and award criteria(3) set out in the call for proposals.

Parliament explained that the proposal sent by the complainant was registered under reference number Info/2006/06/16. It was due to begin on 1 November 2006, and to be completed by 30 April 2007 (that is, it was scheduled to last for six months). Its estimated costs consisted entirely of salaries to be paid to staff for a total amount of EUR 26 000. In reply to a request from DG Information concerning the full monthly salary costs of all staff who would be working on the project, the complainant stated as follows:

"Project Manager (Mr S.): full monthly salary cost 3000 € x 5 months -total 15.000 €.

Project officer (Mr Lizama): full monthly salary cost 2.200 X 5 months -total 11.000 €."

As the Applicant had multiplied the full monthly salary costs by five, which was almost the full duration of the project, Parliament took the view that all staff participating in the project, namely, the complainant and an additional project officer, would be working full-time on the project throughout its entire duration. The complainant's CV mentioned, however, that, in addition to his post as General Manager of the "Fundación Empresa y Calidad", he was also employed in three other posts with other organisations. Furthermore, he appeared to be pursuing an advanced degree at an open university. In view of this information, the evaluation committee considered that the proposal did not show that the Applicant had enough operational capacity to complete the project. The proposal was nevertheless evaluated in accordance with the award criteria. The evaluation committee could not award the proposal the minimum 10 points under the feasibility criteria. Accordingly, it rejected the proposal.

Parliament underlined that, as stated in the call for proposals, the decision of its services was final and that the procedure for 2006 was now closed, so that the Applicant's proposal could not therefore be revaluated.

The complainant's observations

In his observations on Parliament's opinion, the complainant repeated the arguments made in his complaint. He took the view that the whole assessment process was inadequate and that the review of his CV carried out by the Evaluation Committee was discriminatory.

THE DECISION

1 Parliament's assessment of the proposal submitted by the complainant

1.1 The complainant explains that, on 20 February 2006, " Fundación Empresa y Calidad" (hereinafter the "Applicant"), an organisation with which he works, submitted a proposal for funding to the European Parliament (reference: "Spirit of Understanding-Web Platform"; INFO/2006/06/16) in the framework of the 2006 call for proposals launched by Parliament's Directorate-General for Information. On 15 June 2006, however, Parliament informed him that the proposal had not been successful, because he had not included evidence of his operational capacity to run the proposed project.

The complainant alleges that the reasons given by Parliament not to accept the proposal were inadequate. In support of his allegation, the complainant argues that Parliament did not assess the content of the proposal, but merely put forward a number of subjective considerations concerning his CV.

1.2 In its opinion, Parliament argues that, on the basis of the documents submitted with the proposal, it appeared that all staff participating in the project, namely, the complainant and an additional project officer, would be working full-time on it throughout its entire duration. The complainant's CV mentioned, however, that, in addition to his post as General Manager of the "Fundación Empresa y Calidad", he was employed in three other posts with different organisations, and appeared to be pursuing an advanced degree at an open university.

In view of this information, the evaluation committee considered that the proposal did not indicate that the complainant had enough operational capacity to complete the project. The proposal was, nevertheless, evaluated in accordance with the award criteria. However, the evaluation committee could not award the proposal the minimum 10 points under the feasibility criteria. Accordingly, it rejected the proposal.

1.3 The Ombudsman notes that, according to the case-law of the Community Courts, EU institutions enjoy wide discretion regarding the existence of conditions justifying the grant of Community financial assistance. This discretion can only be called into question in cases of manifest errors of assessment of law or fact(4), or if essential procedural requirements have been infringed, in particular when adequate reasoning for a decision has not been given(5).

1.4 The Ombudsman further notes that, as regards the projects to be financed in 2006 by the Directorate-General for Information, the selection criteria had been set out in the call of proposals, which specifically referred to the operational capacity of applicants as follows:

"Only organisations providing evidence of adequate operational capacity and professional qualifications and experience will be eligible for assistance."

To that end, the call for proposals asked applicants to submit detailed CVs of the person(s) responsible for carrying out the main project activities.

1.5 On the basis of the information provided by Parliament in its opinion to the Ombudsman, it appears that its services based its decision not to select the Applicant's proposal on the grounds that it met neither the selection nor the award criteria set out in the call of proposals. As regards the selection criteria, the Ombudsman notes that Parliament argued that the Applicant lacked the required "adequate operational capacity". In relation to the award criteria, it appears that Parliament concluded that the Applicant's proposal also did not obtain the minimum number of points needed as regards its feasibility.

The Ombudsman notes that, already in the explanation it provided to the complainant for refusing to fund his project, Parliament relied first on the Applicant's failure to meet the selection criteria, because of the Applicant's lack of "adequate operational capacity". The Ombudsman understands that the "operational capacity" of applicants refers to the resources which the applicants must be able to dedicate to a project. As a result, Parliament also decided that the project had not, as regards the feasibility criteria, attained the minimum pass-mark of 10 points.

Parliament's decision was based on the fact that the CV of the complainant, who was the person with overall responsibility for the project, indicated that he was to carry out the project whilst, simultaneously, undertaking a number of additional professional and academic activities. The Ombudsman is of the view that the fact that the complainant would, simultaneously, carry out a number of additional professional and academic activities, would negatively impact on the "operational capacity" which the Applicant could dedicate to the project.

The Ombudsman further notes that, in its letter to the complainant dated 15 May 2006, Parliament clearly and unequivocally explained to him the criteria it had applied as regards the application for funding from the Applicant(6).

1.6 In view of the evidence submitted in the course of his inquiry, the Ombudsman has received no information which might lead him to believe that Parliament's assessment of the Applicant's proposal, in particular as regards its lack of adequate "operational capacity" to carry out the project throughout its entire duration, was vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of law or fact. Therefore, the Ombudsman has no reason to believe that Parliament exceeded the limits of its legal authority when it decided to deny the Applicant's proposal funding.

In view of the above, the Ombudsman has concluded that there appears to be no maladministration as regards this aspect of the case.

2 Reassessment of the complainant's proposal

2.1 The complainant claims that Parliament should carry out a new and thorough review of his proposal.

2.2 Taking into consideration the above findings, the Ombudsman does not consider it necessary to deal with the complainant's claim.

3 Conclusion

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

The President of Parliament will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) "Applications submitted, in due form, and according to the instructions indicated in the published call for proposals will be evaluated according to the exclusion, selection and award criteria set out below. Proposals will be evaluated in three stages by an evaluation committee, those which successfully pass the exclusion criteria will be assessed according to the selection criteria. Subsequently proposals passing the selection criteria will be evaluated according to the award criteria and those proposals deemed most worthy will be presented for the award of a grant, subject to available budget. The entire procedure is strictly confidential. In the event of approval by the Parliament, a Grant Agreement (established in Euro) will be concluded between the Parliament and the party submitting the proposal. The decision of the Parliament is final."

(2) SELECTION CRITERIA

"The following documents are required to enable assessment to be made of the applicants' financial and operational capacity to complete the proposed action.

Only organisations providing evidence of adequate operational capacity and professional qualifications and experience will be eligible for assistance. To this end, parties submitting proposals must enclose with their application:

• the latest annual activity report of their organisation or a detailed account of the current main activities of the organisation;
• the fully-detailed CVs of the person(s) who will be responsible for carrying out the main project activities.

Only organisations with stable and sufficient sources of funding to maintain the activity throughout the period of the action will be eligible for a grant. To this end, the party submitting a proposal must enclose with its application:

• a copy of the official annual accounts of the organisation (or the annual budget in the case of a public body) for the last financial year preceding the submission of the proposal. (Including turnover, profit and loss account and balance sheet).
• Applicants must be registered in one of the EU's 25 Member-States and provide evidence of legal status by submitting copies of their registered articles of association or constituent act. The budget estimate for the project must be in balance expenditures/incomes."

(3) AWARD CRITERIA

"The proposal submitted will demonstrate a sound understanding of the subject and the way in which the action will further the objectives described in one of the published themes. The grants will be awarded with a view to the successful completion of those projects deemed the most suitable. To this end, proposals will be selected on the basis of

• The clarity of description of the proposed action, its relevance and coherence with the objectives set. Innovative ideas, originality of projects proposed and the image and/or identity of events and activities will be considered

The methodology to be employed for its realisation and a time schedule for implementation, including detail of the publicity planned for the activity or event.

• A detailed description of the report(s) that will be delivered on completion of the project to DG Information and if applicable any product(s). Planned evaluation, impact assessment of the action and dissemination of results will also be taken into consideration.
• The feasibility of the project
• The cost effectiveness of the project.

A maximum of 20 points for each category will be awarded. Applications must obtain a minimum of 10 points in each category. Any project receiving less than 10 points in any category or who are awarded less than 60 points over all categories will not be considered. Only those project proposals which best meet the objectives set-out under each of the 6 themes, and which are possible to fund within the budgetary limits, will be considered for the award of a grant from DG Information."

(4) Case T-465/93 Consorzio Gruppo Di Azione Locale "Murgia Messapica" v Commission [1994] ECR II-361, paragraphs 46-48.

(5) Joined Cases C-258/90 and C-259/90 Pesquerias de Bermeo and Naviera Laida v Commission [1992] ECR I-2901, paragraphs 25-26. In particular, the Court of Justice noted that "where the Community institutions have [...] a power of appraisal, respect for the rights guaranteed by the Community legal order in administrative procedures is of fundamental importance. Those guarantees include, in particular, the obligation to give an adequate statement of the reasons for the decision. That statement of reasons must show, clearly and unequivocally, the reasoning of the author of the measure, so that the person concerned can, in order to defend his rights, ascertain the grounds on which it was adopted, and the Court can undertake its review."

(6) «Following analysis of your project the evaluation committee have rejected this proposal on the grounds of the selection criteria with the following comments:

* Evidence of operational capacity to run the proposed project for the full duration is not provided as the project manager has four different posts and is studying for a doctorate in open-university. The project proposed did not attain the minimum pass-mark of 10 points for the criteria 'Feasibility'.».