Re: [marie-curie-actions] Administrative errors in MC actions

["Dagmar M. Meyer" <dmeyer@DROPMEmariecurie.org>]

Dear Antonio,

I have to admit that I was a bit too quick in my judgement concerning your
case, and you do actually have a point. I got confused because you made
reference to point 3.2 of the handbook:

> This is very clearly explained
> in point 3.2 'What types of research organizations can take
> part?' page 10 of the handbook for the Outgoing-International
> Fellowships.

Point 3.2 in the handbook refers to the eligibility of certain
organisations as host institution for the RETURN phase. CERN is
explicitly mentioned here since it is located in a country which
at the time of writing of the handbook (May 2003) was still a
Third Country and not an Associated Country. However, normally
the RETURN host has to be located in either a Member State or an
Associated State, so in this sense CERN had a special status as
an International European Interest Organisation.

In your proposal you wanted to choose CERN as the SECONDMENT
host. The relevant passage in the handbook regarding the secondment host
is point 3.4 which states:

"The partner organisation taking part in the projects by hosting
researchers during the secondment phase should be legal entities distinct
from the return host organisation and could be located in any third
countries except those with which the 6th Framework Programme currently
has no co-operation (...). IN ADDITION, according to paragraph 2.5.4 of
the work programme, ANY INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION, even if it is located
in a member or an associated state, could be a partner organisation"

["partner organisation" = secondment host]

This is made even more explicit in an example given a couple of pages
further down, in "Section 4.3.1 Special Conditions for Stays in
International Organsiations":

"Example C): A German researcher who has lived and worked in Germany may
apply for the outgoing phase of the fellowship at the ESO observatory in
Chile or at the ESO headquarters in Munich (Germany)."

So, in your specific case, since CERN is an International European
Interest Organisation, choosing CERN as an outgoing host (even if it is
now located in an Associated State and no longer in a Third Country)
should not have been a legitimate reason for declaring your proposal
ineligible for the OIF action.

Apologies for replying too quickly without reading the whole handbook
again. I probably read your email TOO well, with the result of just
looking at the specific reference you had given.

The question remains what you can do now. Since the results of the
International Fellowships are not yet out, you don't actually know whether
your proposal has been officially declared ineligible for the OIF action,
do you? All you know is that it has (also??) been evaluated within the EIF
scheme and will not be funded within that scheme.

I suggest that you discuss this matter further with your NCP who will be
able to give you the best advice regarding any possble further steps you
could take, once you have the official confirmation that your OIF proposal
has been declared ineligible on the basis of the choice of the secondment
host.

If you would like to discuss this matter further through the list, could
we please restrict it to the marie-curie-actions@DROPMEmariecurie.org list,
rather than involving four different mailing lists? All the archives are
publically readable, so anybody who is particularly interested in the
topic can still follow it without being subscribed to the
marie-curie-actions mailing list. The archive can be accessed through
this link:

http://www.mariecurie.org/index.php?frame2=/src/com/mcactions.htm

Best regards,
Dagmar

PS: I hope you don't mind that I address you by your first name as is
customary on all our mailing lists.



On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Antonio Campos wrote:

>
> Dear Ms Meyer,
>
> I think you should read the handbooks provided by the
> European Union or read more carefully my email before
> given imprecise information in order to not confuse
> other members and other possible applicants.
>
> > On the other hand, Switzerland has been an Associated State (to FP6) since
> > 1 January 2004, so at the time of the deadline for which you submitted
> > your proposal it was no longer a "Third Country", so your proposal was
> > ineligible for the OIF action anyway.
>
> This is completely pointless for the institution I was aplying
> for. CERN is one of the centers given in the handbook as example
> of elegible organizations to participate in the Outgoing-international
> action. I have provided the page and paragraph where this is
> explicitly explained in my first email.
>
>
> > In that sense the Commission has
> > actually done you a favour by transfering your proposal - rather than
> > declaring it ineligible straight away they at least gave you a second
> > chance.
> >
> > Sorry, but I really don't think that you can talk of unfair treatment
> > here.
>
> I prefer not to comment on that!!! I think the International
> Fellowships Unit of the Research Directorate is taking my
> problem more seriously.
>
> >
> > >
> > > CERN is an International organization dedicated to the
> > > study of elemnetary particles. Eventhought it is located in
> > > Geneve, Switzerland, this research center is fully elegible
> > > for the outgoing phase because it is considered an International
> > > European interest organization. This is very clearly explained
> > > in point 3.2 'What types of research organizations can take
> > > part?' page 10 of the handbook for the Outgoing-International
> > > Fellowships.
> > >
>
>