Judgment_paragraph 6 · Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v Commission of the European Communities (C-331/05 P)

6The facts giving rise to the dispute were set out in the contested order as follows:6 The applicant is a non-governmental organisation (NGO) governed by German law which provides support to refugees and to victims of war and catastrophe. Between 1993 and 1997 it submitted six applications for the co-financing of projects to the Commission.7 When the Commission services considered the initial applications, they concluded that the applicant was not eligible for aid granted to NGOs as it did not satisfy the general conditions for the co-financing of projects. The applicant was informed of that decision by letter of 12 October 1993. By letter of 29 July 1996, the Commission set out the principal reasons which had led it to determine that the applicant could not be regarded as an eligible NGO.8 On 5 December 1996, the applicant submitted a new project to the Commission. An amended version of that project was submitted to the Commission under a fresh application in September 1997. The Commission did not take a decision on those new applications for co-financing since it considered that the decision of 12 October 1993 that the applicant was ineligible remained valid.9 The applicant then lodged three successive complaints with the Ombudsman, one in 1998 [Complaint No 338/98/VK] and the other two in 2000 [Complaints Nos 1160/2000/GG and 1613/2000/GG]. Those complaints essentially related to two questions, namely access by the applicant to the file and whether the Commission had considered the applicants requests fairly and objectively.10 As regards access to the file, in a decision of 30 November 2001, the Ombudsman found that the list of documents which the Commission had provided to the applicant was incomplete, that the Commission had held back certain documents without cause and that, consequently, the Commissions conduct could constitute maladministration. He proposed that the Commission authorise suitable access to the file. That access was provided in the Commissions offices on 26 October 2001. The Ombudsman also found an instance of maladministration in the fact that the applicant had not been given a formal hearing on the information received by the Commission from third parties which had been used in taking a decision against the applicant.11 As regards fair and objective consideration of the applications, in a further decision also delivered on 30 November 2001, the Ombudsman concluded in connection with the Commissions consideration of information received from third parties, that the Commission had failed to deal with the matter fairly and objectively. Further, in his decision of 11 July 2000, the Ombudsman criticised the fact that the Commission had allowed an excessively long period of time to elapse before providing in writing the reasons which had led it in 1993 to conclude that the applicant was ineligible. Lastly, with regard to the fact that the Commission had failed to take a formal decision on the applications submitted by the applicant in December 1996 and September 1997, in his decision of 19 July 2001 the Ombudsman recommended that the Commission should come to a formal decision on those applications before 31 October 2001.12 In order to comply with the Ombudsman's recommendation, on 16 October 2001 the Commission sent the applicant a letter rejecting the two projects submitted in December 1996 and September 1997 on the ground that the applicant was ineligible for co-financing.13 By application lodged on 15 December 2001, the applicant brought an action against the letter of 16 October 2001. In its judgment in Case T-321/01 Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission [2003] ECR II-3225, the Court of First Instance annulled the Commissions decision of 16 October 2001 refusing the applications for co-financing made by the applicant in December 1996 and September 1997 and ordered the defendant to pay the costs.14 In its application, the applicant had also claimed that the defendant should reimburse the costs it had incurred in the proceedings before the Ombudsman. In its judgment, the Court of First Instance held that the costs relating to proceedings before the Ombudsman could not be regarded as expenses necessarily incurred within the meaning of Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance and were therefore not recoverable’.