1. FP7 redress Alan Cross Programme Committee: specific configuration Brussels, 29 November 2007

2. 2 Why redress? è In the past, complaints arrived haphazardly l Handled at different levels l No systematic treatment l No common record è The redress procedure does not give a new right of appeal… è …but it will ensure a consistent and coherent approach to complaints l Establish “due process” l Uphold principles of transparency and equal treatment

3. 3 Legal basis è Included (by Council) in the Rules for Participation: l “The Commission shall provide information and set out redress procedures for applicants” [art.16.3] l (See also art. 18.8 in relation to participants) è Procedure outlined in “evaluation rules” l When an applicant believes: “… there has been a shortcoming in the handing of his or her proposal….that would jeopardise the outcome of the evaluation process…” l Triggered by “initial info letter” and the ESR l One month window l ‘Eligible’ complaints considered by internal review committee

4. 4 Principles and guidelines è Redress will not “stop the train” l Uncontentious proposals negotiated and selected as normal l But maybe exceptions… è Complaints must relate to shortcomings in the handling of proposal evaluation l Before a Commission decision has been made è The procedure will not call into question judgement of appropriately qualified experts

5. 5 Practical arrangements è Redress committee (RC) l Meets in different configuration per theme, or group of themes l Experienced officials nominated for « jury service » l Chairperson from another department l Includes call co-ordinator l Size proportionate to expected number of complaints è Redress office (RO), in RTD/A1 l Registers and dispatches complaints (possibly with comments) l Dispatches to RC l Monitors follow up l Ensures consistency (training, “doctrine”, templates etc) l Comments on draft advice, if necessary l General advice and assistance

9. 9 Possible conclusions of RC è Inadequate evidence to support complaint l The overwhelming majority è Evidence to support complaint, but no further action recommended l Problem with one criterion, but proposal would fail in any case l Proposal to be funded anyway l … è Evidence to support complaint, with follow-up recommended l Problem would “jeopardise” decision to fund or not l Re-evaluation of all or part of proposal called for

10. 10 Experience to date è For each call, between 5-10% of applicants send in a redress complaint l These all have to be examined by the RC l …a significant draw on staff resources è The vast majority simply question the scientific judgement of the experts l The RC checks the experts’ competence, as a group, and checks that the correct procedure was followed l If all OK – no follow up! è Or they simply supply further information to “clarify” their proposals l These cases will never lead to a follow-up

11. 11 Key messages è Redress is not an automatic re-evaluation l We expect re-evaluations to be very rare indeed => Currently, 1-2% of complaints received è The judgement of appropriately qualified experts will not be called into question è Speculative or ill-founded redress requests simply delay definitive decisions l And divert resources from smooth programme management è We want redress to help us focus on genuine problems….if any!