FP7 redress Alan Cross

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
(No Transcript)
7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
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

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

11
Key messages

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