11
FP7 redress Alan Cross Programme Committee: specific configuration Brussels, 29 November 2007

FP7 redress Alan Cross

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

FP7 redress Alan Cross. Programme Committee: specific configuration Brussels, 29 November 2007. Why redress?. In the past, complaints arrived haphazardly Handled at different levels No systematic treatment No common record The redress procedure does not give a new right of appeal… - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: FP7 redress Alan Cross

FP7 redressAlan Cross

Programme Committee: specific configurationBrussels, 29 November 2007

Page 2: FP7 redress Alan Cross

2

Why redress? In the past, complaints arrived

haphazardly Handled at different levels No systematic treatment No common record

The redress procedure does not give a new right of appeal…

…but it will ensure a consistent and coherent approach to complaints Establish “due process” Uphold principles of transparency and equal

treatment

Page 3: FP7 redress Alan Cross

3

Legal basis Included (by Council) in the Rules for Participation:

“The Commission shall provide information and set out redress procedures for applicants” [art.16.3]

(See also art. 18.8 in relation to participants) Procedure outlined in “evaluation rules”

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…”

Triggered by “initial info letter” and the ESR One month window ‘Eligible’ complaints considered by internal review

committee

Page 4: FP7 redress Alan Cross

4

Principles and guidelines Redress will not “stop the train”

Uncontentious proposals negotiated and selected as normal

But maybe exceptions… Complaints must relate to shortcomings in the

handling of proposal evaluation Before a Commission decision has been made

The procedure will not call into question judgement of appropriately qualified experts

Page 5: FP7 redress Alan Cross

5

Practical arrangements

Redress committee (RC) Meets in different configuration per theme, or group of themes Experienced officials nominated for « jury service » Chairperson from another department Includes call co-ordinator Size proportionate to expected number of complaints

Redress office (RO), in RTD/A1 Registers and dispatches complaints (possibly with comments) Dispatches to RC Monitors follow up Ensures consistency (training, “doctrine”, templates etc) Comments on draft advice, if necessary General advice and assistance

Page 6: FP7 redress Alan Cross
Page 7: FP7 redress Alan Cross
Page 8: FP7 redress Alan Cross
Page 9: FP7 redress Alan Cross

9

Possible conclusions of RC Inadequate evidence to support complaint

The overwhelming majority

Evidence to support complaint, but no further action recommended Problem with one criterion, but proposal would fail in any

case Proposal to be funded anyway …

Evidence to support complaint, with follow-up recommended Problem would “jeopardise” decision to fund or not Re-evaluation of all or part of proposal called for

Page 10: FP7 redress Alan Cross

10

Experience to date For each call, between 5-10% of applicants

send in a redress complaint These all have to be examined by the RC …a significant draw on staff resources

The vast majority simply question the scientific judgement of the experts The RC checks the experts’ competence, as a

group, and checks that the correct procedure was followed

If all OK – no follow up! Or they simply supply further information to

“clarify” their proposals These cases will never lead to a follow-up

Page 11: FP7 redress Alan Cross

11

Key messages

Redress is not an automatic re-evaluation We expect re-evaluations to be very rare indeed

=> Currently, 1-2% of complaints received

The judgement of appropriately qualified experts will not be called into question

Speculative or ill-founded redress requests simply delay definitive decisions And divert resources from smooth programme

management We want redress to help us focus on genuine

problems….if any!