Background to the complaint

1. The complainant worked as a consultant for the European Parliament in Brussels, employed through an external contractor. In March 2018, as part of its security clearance procedure for external staff members, Parliament requested the Belgian authorities to carry out a background check for the complainant. The Belgian authorities informed Parliament that the complainant was not living at his registered address. This meant that the complainant did not comply with the security requirements for accessing Parliament´s premises, and could therefore no longer work in Parliament. Parliament informed the complainant’s employer that it could make a new request to the Belgian authorities for a background check once he had registered his new address with the local authorities.

2. The complainant registered his new address with the local authorities in April 2018 and received a new residence certificate. The external contractor sent this to Parliament and asked it to request a new background check, so the complainant could receive security clearance.  

3. In May 2018, Parliament asked the Belgian authorities to carry out a new background check. According to the national rules, the background check should be completed within a month[1]. In June 2018, the external contractor asked Parliament for an update on the status of the request. Parliament replied that there was no progress.

4. Dissatisfied with how Parliament was dealing with his security clearance, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in August 2018.

The inquiry

5. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into how Parliament was dealing with the complainant’s security clearance.

6. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman asked Parliament to update the complainant about the status of the review. The Ombudsman invited the complainant to comment on Parliament’s reply. The complainant did not submit any comments.

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

7. The complainant considered that there was undue delay in how Parliament was dealing with his security clearance.

8. Parliament stated that, since May 2018, the Belgian authorities had stopped carrying out background checks for security clearance and did not indicate when they would resume. This meant that the review of the complainant’s security clearance was held up. Parliament stated that it would inform the complainant about any developments on the status of his security clearance.

The Ombudsman's assessment

9. Parliament has now explained to the complainant why there is a delay with his security clearance. The reason for the delay is down to the national authorities, and therefore is outside Parliament’s control. The Ombudsman’s inquiry team has advised the complainant that he could ask the Belgian Federal Ombudsman[2] to deal with the matter. 

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion:

There was no maladministration by the European Parliament.

The complainant and Parliament will be informed of this decision.

 

Emily O'Reilly

European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 11/01/2019

 

[1] Note explicative à l’exécution de la loi du 11 Décembre relative à la classification et aux habilitations de sécurité, attestations et avis de sécurité, Point 2.c.

[2]  https://www.ombudsman.be/fr/ombudsmans/mediateur-federal.