1 / 11

FP7 redress Alan Cross

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…

clare-hinton
Télécharger la présentation

FP7 redress Alan Cross

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  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

  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

  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

  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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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!

More Related