On behalf of CESS GmbH i.L. - Centre for European Security Strategies, on problems for SMEs to take part in research projects  

The petitioner states that the firm CESS is an SME and a limited-liability company with two partners; they are also managing directors and employees. According to the petitioner, the firm's core activity is involvement in numerous security-related research projects at national and international level and, in particular, in the EU’s 6th and 7th Research Framework Programmes. He further explains that his firm was the subject of a project audit in connection with the FP7 project PULSE by the European Court of Auditors on the hourly rate charged by partners, which led to a reduction of about 33% in the hourly rate accepted and subsequently to substantial recovery of payments from CESS or withholding of more than EUR 70 000 in what he regards as the firm’s justified claims. As a result, according to the petitioner, what is otherwise a very successful firm would close down and, at worst, go bankrupt. In the view of the petitioner, the outcome of the project audit stems from a difference in appraisal of the firm’s staff and partners. According to him, however, this is a mistaken and, because the firm is an SME, harsh interpretation of the term ‘salary’ by the Court of Auditors, since, in his opinion, it is incorrectly associated with an employment contract, which partners in limited-liability companies do not enter into. The petitioner states that the compulsory ‘Marie Curie flat rate’ calculation made by the Commission in Decision C(2011) 174 on the remuneration of business owners not receiving a salary, incorrectly reflects the revision, called for by Parliament and the Council, of the calculation methods within the Seventh Framework Research Programme. According to him, the calculation was taken over from another programme, which, however, related to remuneration of non-profit organisations, e.g. remuneration for researchers seconded from universities, but not partners in firms. He is therefore asking for verification as to whether the Commission decision correctly interprets what was stipulated by Parliament (decision of 23 April 2009 (2009/633/EG, Euratom) and by the Council on 14 October 2010 (14980/10).