No explanation provided in the main source (AR 2018-19) which lists this complaint with the ID, 14-003. However, non-admissibility details are provided in AR 2014 for complaints received between 2014 and July 2015 without any IDs assigned. We can try to match the two and extract reasons why the complaint was deemed ineligible for completing this field. ('2.1 Overview of complaints received', pg 2, https://www.fmo.nl/l/en/library/download/urn:uuid:04721ba1-2875-43b0-bf4e-f7871280fcc9/icm+annual+report+2014+-+hy+2015.pdf) AR 2014 indicates 3 inadmissible complaints, 2 in 2014 and 1 in 2015. The 2015 one and one of the two 2014 ones had DEG and FMO both as the client. That is, the other 2014 one has a single client (FMO), and cannot be 14-003 listed in AR 2019. This is because while AR 2019 does not mention client(s), it states the complaint receiving office was DEG. If only DEG received the complaint, FMO could not have been the client, but it is possible that FMO and DEG both could have been clients. Thus, we can assume 14-003 from AR 2019 to be one of the two joint client inadmissible complaints in AR 2014. According to AR 2014, the reasons for non-admissibility for these joint-client complaints were, "The other two were complaints by employees of projects or project contractors in relation to the way they had been treated in their employment and both failed to identify policy breaches by DEG or FMO."