The background to the complaint

1. On 14 May 2012, the complainant applied for the position of "Scientific Fellow - Economic Analysis of Agricultural and Resource Policy Scenarios" at the Commission's Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS).

2. On 6 June 2012, the IPTS sent the complainant an e-mail in which it explained that it wished to invite him to a job interview in Seville on 29 June 2012. It asked the complainant to confirm that this was a convenient date for him and added that, upon receiving his confirmation, it would send him a formal letter of invitation. The IPTS asked the complainant not to buy any flight tickets before having received the formal letter of invitation.

3. That same day, the complainant confirmed that the proposed interview date suited him. However, he pointed out that he does not travel by plane and that he prefers to do so by train. Travelling from his town to Seville would take 30 hours or longer and could be more expensive than a flight. He queried whether this could be an issue.

4. On 8 June 2012, the IPTS replied that he was "perfectly entitled to travel by train".

5. On 13 June 2012, the IPTS informed the complainant that it had decided to withdraw its "invitation to an interview". It added that "[t]he fact that you do not travel by plane as a rule does not constitute a problem for the interview, but will become one if you are selected to occupy the vacant position since it implies frequent travels inside and outside the European Union."

6. That same day, the complainant replied that he considered the position adopted by the IPTS to constitute discrimination against him on the ground that he does not travel by plane. In the complainant's view, this was unfair and probably illegal since the position in question had to do with research and not with travelling by plane. He added that he had already bought train tickets for EUR 758.50 and was only able to obtain a refund of EUR 690.10 when he cancelled these tickets. He hoped that the IPTS would at least cover the difference.

7. On 14 June 2012, the IPTS replied that it had clearly stated in its e-mail of 6 June 2012 that the complainant should not purchase any ticket before receiving the official letter of invitation. It could not reimburse the complainant the difference because it had never sent him an official invitation. The IPTS added that it did not consider its decision discriminatory. In its view, this decision was the inevitable consequence of the constraints the complainant had freely chosen to impose on himself and which were not compatible with a position requiring frequent international travel by air.

8. The complainant stressed that the job announcement did not specify any requirement concerning flying. In his view, any such requirement should have been stated clearly. Moreover, the job announcement did not mention that the relevant position involved frequent international travel by air. It was true that he had not received an official invitation, but it was also true that the IPTS wrote in an e-mail of 8 June 2012 that the complainant was "perfectly entitled to travel by train".

9. On 15 June 2012, the complainant turned to the European Ombudsman.

The subject matter of the inquiry

10. In his complaint, the complainant essentially put forward the following allegations and claim:

Allegations:

1) The Commission discriminated against the complainant, treated him unfairly and acted in an illegal manner because of the fact that he does not travel by air.

In support of this allegation, the complainant put forward that the vacancy notice concerning the relevant post did not mention that this post involved frequent international travel by plane.

2) The Commission wrongly cancelled the interview after having confirmed that the complainant was entitled to travel to this interview by train.

Claim:

The Commission should either allow the complainant to attend the job interview or reimburse the non-refunded amount of the purchase price of the train ticket.

The inquiry

11. On 10 July 2012, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry.

12. On 24 July 2012, the complainant informed the Ombudsman that the IPTS had informed him that it would like to contact him with respect to his complaint. The complainant asked how he should proceed.

13. On 2 August 2012, the Ombudsman's services informed the complainant that, whilst this was not the usual procedure, the Ombudsman would of course welcome any contact between the institution and the complainant that could make it possible to settle a complaint.

14. On 4 August 2012, the complainant thanked the Ombudsman's case-handler for the e-mail of 2 August 2012 and explained that he had already talked to a Head of Unit at the IPTS. The complainant added that a satisfactory solution had been found.

15. On 13 August 2012, the Commission forwarded to the Ombudsman copies of an e-mail exchange that had taken place between its services and the complainant. It emerged from this exchange that the IPTS telephoned the complainant on 31 July 2012 and offered to reimburse the amount of the purchase price of the train ticket that had not been refunded. The next day, the complainant informed the IPTS that he agreed with its proposal.

16. On 14 August 2012, the Ombudsman's services wrote an e-mail to the complainant pointing out that the Commission had informed the Ombudsman that a mutually acceptable solution had been found and asked the complainant to confirm the understanding that his case had been settled.

17. On 31 August 2012, the complainant confirmed that he and the Commission had "found an agreement that has settled [his] complaint and solved the case".

The Ombudsman's analysis and conclusions

A. The complainant's allegations and claim

18. The complainant alleged that the Commission discriminated against him, treated him unfairly and acted in an illegal manner because of the fact that he does not travel by air. He further alleged that the Commission wrongly cancelled the interview after having confirmed that he was entitled to travel to this interview by train. The complainant claimed that the Commission should either (i) allow him to attend the job interview or (ii) reimburse the non-refunded amount of the purchase price of the train ticket.

19. It emerges from the information that was submitted to the Ombudsman after he opened the present inquiry that the Commission opted for the second option and decided to reimburse the non-refunded amount of the purchase price of the train ticket.

20. The Ombudsman notes that the complainant informed both the Commission and the Ombudsman's services that the Commission had thus settled the issue.

21. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission has taken steps to resolve the complainant's complaint and has thus settled the matter. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

B. Conclusions

On the basis of his inquiry into this complaint, the Ombudsman closes it with the following conclusion:

The Commission has settled the present case.

The complainant and the Commission will be informed of this decision.

 

P. Nikiforos Diamandouros

Done in Strasbourg on 13 September 2012