19 box 5 ExamplEs of sElEctIon systEms faIlInG to sElEct rElEVant projEcts italy — campania: the design of the system appeared to represent good practice as eligible investment projects were evaluated on the basis of a selection criteria grid which provided for an overall minimum score (threshold) to be achieved by eligible projects, including a ‘project quality’ threshold. However, the system awarded points not only where a project met the criteria but also when they were not met. under the category ‘quality of the projects’, a project that does not satisfy any criteria will obtain 20 points (that is the ‘minimum threshold’ to be achieved) and will therefore still be financed. this effectively renders project quality selection meaningless since all projects automatically qualify if enough funding is available. france (aquitaine): in the absence of selection criteria, the mere fact that a project was eligible and funds were available meant that it would be selected. as a result, a project for the creation of a new wine tasting room was funded even though such facilities existed already. the project did not further diversify/broaden the farm’s activity and therefore did not contribute to the objectives of the measure under which it was funded. box 6 ExamplEs of InEffEctIVE sElEctIon procEssEs czech republic: during the first two years (2007 and 2008), without a minimum threshold and with a sufficient budget to finance all eligible applications, the projects submitted were not actually ranked according to the preferential criteria. as a consequence, projects with 0 points out of a maximum of 35 and 1 point out of a maximum available score of 106 were still financed. since 2010, eligible projects have needed a much higher score to be funded: minimum 25 out of 40 and 54 out of 101 points respectively. italy — campania: for measure 312, during the first application period (July/august 2009), all 163 eligible applications were financed. in the second period, (september/october 2009), 322 applications were admissible, but only 70 were financed because the entire budget for the measure had already been used up. this meant that projects from the second period were excluded even where they scored much better than others that had been financed during the first period. for example, of the projects excluded due to a lack of funds during the second period the best ranked had a score higher than 85 % of those financed during the first period. sweden: until 2011, there were no cases where applications for eligible projects were rejected on the grounds of being low priority. a result of this failure to prioritise is that the measures were partially closed in 2011 due to budget shortages and projects were rejected on the grounds that ‘money for projects is limited and we must prioritise’. 
19 5. selgitus näited ValiKusüsteeMidest, Mis ei VõiMaldanud Valida asjaKohaseid projeKte itaalias Campanias paistis kavandatud süsteem endast kujutavat head tava, sest toetuskõlblikke investeerimisprojekte hinnati valikukriteeriumide tabeli põhjal, mis nägi ette üldise miinimumpunktide määra (lävendi), sealhulgas projekti kvaliteedilävendi, milleni toetuskõlblikud projektid pidid küündima. Kuid süsteemi abil anti punkte mitte üksnes projektidele, mis vastasid kriteeriumidele, vaid ka projektidele, mis kriteeriumidele ei vastanud. Projektide kvaliteedi kategoorias kogub ühelegi kriteeriumile mittevastav projekt 20 punkti (mis on nõutud miinimumlävend) ja saab seega toetust.