Dear Ms C.,

On 9 February 2007, you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission concerning the allegedly incorrect application of the Rules governing the official traineeship scheme of the Commission and the alleged failure on the part of the Traineeship Office to change its application form so that non-consecutive work experience could be declared.

On 19 March 2007, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 31 May 2007 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. No observations have been received from you. On 10 September 2007, my services telephoned you and, in the course of this conversation, you confirmed that you are satisfied with the way in which the Commission has resolved the matter.

I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the relevant facts are, in summary, as follows:

The complainant, a Portuguese national, served as an unpaid trainee, for a total period of three weeks, in the office of a Member of the European Parliament ("MEP"), in Strasbourg, during Parliament's plenary sessions in May, June and July 2006. In order to facilitate her access to Parliament's premises, the MEP in question requested that she be provided with a service card, which was valid for the entire three-month period.

In August 2006, the complainant applied for an in-service traineeship at the Commission. In accordance with Point 2.3 of the Rules governing the official traineeship scheme of the Commission ("the Rules")(1), applications from persons who have already benefited from any kind of in-service training for more than six weeks are not accepted by the Commission. Taking into consideration the above rule and with a view to clarifying the length of the traineeship in question, the complainant attached a declaration from the MEP for whom she had worked, which indicated the duration and the timing of her traineeship in his office.

The complainant submitted that she had to declare, in her electronic application form, that her training lasted three months instead of three weeks, as the relevant field in the form used the format "from ... to", which did not allow applicants to declare non-consecutive work experience. However, in the description of her activities, the complainant clarified that her training had lasted three weeks only.

On 10 October 2006, the Commission rejected her application on the grounds that the eligibility criteria as described in Point 2.3 of the Rules had not been met.

After receiving the Commission's rejection of her application, the complainant sent several e-mails to its services, in which she provided further explanations as regards the duration of her training. She requested that the Commission reconsider its decision and that it admit her application. The complainant further requested that the Commission change the electronic application form for the future, so that candidates could also declare non-consecutive work experience.

On 13 October 2006, the Commission reiterated its view that the complainant's application for a traineeship was not admissible, arguing that the complainant had been allowed to access Parliament for three months and she had therefore been registered as a trainee for the entire three-month period. The Commission emphasised that its decision to reject the complainant's application was final.

The complainant considered reapplying for an in-service traineeship in February 2007 and decided to ask the Commission how she could declare non-consecutive work experience, since the electronic application form had still not been modified. The Commission again informed the complainant that she could not apply for a traineeship.

On 9 February 2007, the complaint submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman, alleging that, as a result of an incorrect application of Point 2.3 of the Rules, her application was unfairly rejected by the Commission and she was not allowed to reapply.

Furthermore, the complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to change its electronic application form, even though the current version did not allow applicants in her situation to declare non-consecutive work experience.

The complainant claimed that she should be allowed to submit an application for a traineeship and that the electronic application form should be altered so that non-consecutive work experience could be declared.

THE INQUIRY

In its opinion, the Commission explained that the complainant's application had been rejected on the grounds that preparatory and follow-up work for the plenary sessions must have entailed more than mere attendance during the sessions. The Commission had also discovered, from Parliament's Security Service, that the complainant had a service card which was valid for the entire three-month period. The Commission consequently concluded that the complainant must have worked for more than three weeks in Parliament.

However, the Commission pointed out that, after having reviewed the complainant's file again and in particular the declaration from the MEP with whom the complainant had worked, it had proposed to accept the complainant's application as eligible and to submit it to the pre-selection committees for the training period to begin in October 2007.

The Commission further clarified that, in accordance with the rules, it was irrelevant whether the applicant's work was exclusively performed during the session or not. The complainant either had an active role not only during the plenary sessions but also during the preparation of such sessions or she was a mere observer. If the complainant were a mere observer, her role should not have been declared as professional experience. Given that the applicant had not been involved in any preparatory work between the sessions, it appeared that her role had been limited to that of a mere observer and the Commission pointed out that it would thus not take into account the work experience declared by the complainant in that role. According to the Commission, the complainant's experience as an observer should not have been declared in her application form as professional experience.

Concerning the electronic application form, the Commission clarified that the applicants were invited to declare in the form only relevant professional experience with a minimum duration of one month. The Commission stated that, at the time the application form was designed, professional experience of less than one month had not been considered relevant and such experience thus did not need to be declared.

No observations were received from the complainant.

THE DECISION

1.1 The complainant, a Portuguese national, applied for an in-service traineeship at the European Commission. She was informed that her application had been rejected as she did not meet the eligibility criteria described in Point 2.3 of the Rules governing the official traineeship scheme of the Commission ("the Rules"). According to Point 2.3 of the Rules, applications from persons who have already benefited from any kind of in-service training for more than six weeks are not accepted by the Commission. In her complaint to the European Ombudsman the complainant alleged that her application had been incorrectly rejected, as her non-consecutive work experience took place only during Parliament's plenary sessions and lasted for a total of three weeks only. She further alleged that the format of the electronic application form did not allow applicants in her situation to declare non-consecutive work experience and that the Commission had failed to change the form accordingly. The complainant submitted that her attempt to reapply for a traineeship had also been rejected by the Commission. She claimed that she should be allowed to submit an application for a traineeship and that the electronic application form should be altered so that non-consecutive work experience could be declared.

1.2 As regards the complainant's prior professional experience, the Commission explained, in its opinion, that it had taken the view that preparatory and follow-up work for plenary sessions entailed more than mere attendance during the sessions. The Commission also stated that it was irrelevant whether the complainant's work was exclusively performed during the sessions or not. The Commission stated that it had also taken into consideration the fact that the complainant had received a service card which was valid for the entire three-month period. According to the Commission, the applicant either had an active role not only during the plenary sessions, but also during the preparation of such sessions or she was a mere observer. If the complainant were a mere observer, her role should not have been declared as professional experience. Given that the applicant appeared to have been a mere observer, the Commission pointed out that it would not take into consideration her declaration of this role as professional experience.

1.3 As regards the format of the electronic application form, the Commission explained that only work experience of a minimum duration of one month should be declared and that experience of less than one month is not considered relevant and should not be declared.

1.4 The Commission stated that, after reviewing the complainant's file again, it decided to accept her application and to submit it to the pre-selection committees for the training period starting in October 2007.

1.5 On 10 September 2007, the Ombudsman's services telephoned the complainant. The complainant confirmed that she was satisfied with the way in which the Commission had resolved the matter. The complainant also thanked the Ombudsman for his effective intervention and help in settling her case.

1.6. In view of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission appears to have taken adequate steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied the complainant.

It appears from the Commission’s comments that the Commission has taken steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied the complainant. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The President of the Commission will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

(1) Commission Decision of 2 March 2005, C(2005)458.