Examples of using Applicant's guide in English and their translations into Polish
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Financial
-
Official/political
-
Programming
-
Computer
However, it submits that it merely followed the model imposed by the Commission in Annex 6 to the Applicant's Guide.
Thirdly, the Technical and Financial Annex to the Applicant's Guide, which presents the system for evaluation of applications in four steps, was not complied with.
In the context of the second plea in law, the applicant puts forward the same heads of claim, apart from that alleging infringement of Annex 7 to the Applicant's Guide.
The Applicant's Guide contains a number of Annexes, among them Annex 2,‘Technical and Financial Annex'; Annex 6,‘Grant Application- Description of the Project'; and Annex 7,‘Budget Estimate.
The applicant therefore submits that the contested decision infringes the rules previously established, such as the Applicant's Guide and Annexes 6 and 7 thereto.
Furthermore, contrary to what the applicant submits,it must be pointed out that the model in Annex 6 of the Applicant's Guide in no way prevents the applicant for a grant from clarifying the way in which his proposal builds on his normal activities and, in particular, on his previous experience.
PROVINCIA DI IMPERIA v COMMISSION of reasons, since it merely makes explicit the third criterion in paragraph 34 of the Technical andFinancial Annex to the Applicant's Guide.
Lastly, it stresses that the decision's infringement of the call for proposals VP/2003/021 and of the Applicant's Guide results in the infringement of the higher-ranking rules under which they were adopted.
Fourthly, the applicant submits that there was failure to comply with the alternative criterion in paragraph 34 of the Technical and Financial Annex to the Applicant's Guide.
It is obvious that the different entries in the budget would be mathematically identical,if it were not for the fact that Annex 7(b) to the Applicant's Guide requires a statement of the indirect costs, as well as the entries set out in Annex 6.
It follows that the applicant completed the grant application and the budget estimate in accordance with the model documents annexed to the Applicant's Guide.
Consequently, the first plea must be declared well founded in respect of infringement of Annexes 2,6 and 7 to the Applicant's Guide and there is no need to examine the other arguments raised by the applicant in the context of that plea.
The applicant thus submits that there can be no inconsistency between Annexes 6 and 7 of its proposal as it complied in every respect with the binding model set out by the Commission in the Applicant's Guide.
Secondly, it states that the Commission's criteria, in paragraph 34 of the Technical and Financial Annex to the Applicant's Guide, for evaluating the proposals are rather widely defined, without reference to the pre-established structure of the proposal.
In stating reasons for the contested decision, in the context of the check of the quality of the application(fourth step), on the basis of a criterion which is covered by the third step, the Commission infringed the Technical andFinancial Annex to the Applicant's Guide and the principle of legal certainty.
Having regard to the foregoing,the Commission did not correctly apply either the rules in the models in Annexes 6 and 7 to the Applicant's Guide or the final criterion in paragraph 34 of the Technical and Financial Annex to the Applicant's Guide.
By taking the view that the proposal does not explain how the applicant will manage to build and develop its new project on the basis of its previous experience, the Commission is merely examining whether the proposal satisfies the third criterion in paragraph 34 of the Technical and Financial Annex to the Applicant's Guide.
In other words, the structure of the grant application,as imposed by Annex 6 to the Applicant's Guide, does not prevent the applicant for a grant from acting in such a way that his application satisfies the third criterion in paragraph 34 of the Technical and Financial Annex to the Applicant's Guide.
In this respect, it must be pointed out that that consistency complies perfectly with the requirement for correspondence inparagraph 34 of the Technical and Financial Annex to the Applicant's Guide as the final evaluation criterion for assessing the quality and.
Recently, the applicant's guides for two important measures from Romania's National Programme for Rural Development were published, without even a minimum promotion and information campaign, just a single day before the start date for submitting applications for financing.
Fourthly, the applicant's argument that the Commission did not respect the alternative nature of the criterion in paragraph 34 of the Technical and Financial Annex to the Applicant's Guide because it did not examine the proposal from the perspective of its difference from the normal activities, must be rejected as irrelevant.
As regards the obligation in paragraph C8 of Annex 6 to the Applicant's Guide to which the Commission refers and according to which‘all administration activities and costs, budget heading D.4, should be included' in the grant application for the purpose of the management and coordination of the project, it must be stated that that obligation can apply only to the direct eligible costs.
The information in the contested decision, as supplemented by the information contained in the email of 4 July 2005,is of such a kind as to allow the applicant to understand clearly that one of the two reasons for the refusal of its grant application was based on the third criterion of paragraph 34 of the Technical and Financial Annex to the Applicant's Guide for assessing the quality and feasibility of the actions proposed in the application.
PROVINCIA DI IMPERIA v COMMISSION the communication of 12 January 2001,the rules set out in the call for proposals VP/2003/021 and in the Applicant's Guide, including Annexes 2 and 6 thereto, it must be pointed out that the applicant merely lists the infringement of those provisions as an abstract proposition in the heading of this plea.
Thirdly, as regards the applicant's argument that the reasons for the contested decision were based on a criterion associated with a step which it had already successfully completed, it must be pointed out that the experience previously acquired, which was relied on in support of that decision, must be understood as corresponding to normal activities, such as covered by the third criterion in paragraph 34 of the Technical and Financial Annex to the Applicant's Guide.
Secondly, as regards the applicant's head of claim alleging infringement of the Applicant's Guide by the ground disputed in the context of this plea, namely that‘there are serious inconsistencies between the budget information provided in Annex 6 and that provided in Annex 7' of the proposal, it must be found, as is shown by the two tables below, that, in both of those annexes, the headings D.1 to D.4, set out exactly the same totals and correspond perfectly.
In the context of the first plea in law, the applicant puts forward several heads of claim, alleging infringement of Article 253 EC, Article 6 of Regulation No 1784/1999, Articles 22 and 24 of Regulation No 1260/1999, the rules established in the call for proposals VP/2003/021 and in the Applicant's Guide, including Annexes 2, 6 and 7 thereto, and also alleges a manifest error of assessment of the facts, a misuse of powers and infringement of the principle of legal certainty.