Strasbourg, 17 October 2003

Dear Mr M.,

On 2 August 2002, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the conduct of an official at the traineeships office of the European Parliament where you had applied for a study visit.

On 23 September 2002, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Parliament. The European Parliament sent its opinion on 7 January 2003 and on 28 January 2003 I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished, by 28 February 2003. No observations appear to have been received from you.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant, a German student, intended to spend a study visit at the European Parliament. According to the complainant, he contacted the responsible service (traineeships office) by e-mail on 3 June 2002. This e-mail allegedly remained unanswered and he therefore contacted the traineeships office on 22 July 2002 by telephone. An official of the traineeships office, Ms. J, advised the complainant to send his application. The application was sent the same day. On 26 July 2002, the complainant contacted Ms. J by telephone to enquire whether his application had reached the European Parliament. The official allegedly asked him to call back the following week. The complainant alleges to have made several unsuccessful attempts on 30 July and 1 August 2002. On each occasion a telephone answering machine allegedly aborted the telephone call. On 2 August 2002, the complainant finally managed to reach the traineeships office through the switchboard and was informed that Ms. J was on holiday. The complainant considers that this made him lose two weeks in his working schedule.

The complainant therefore lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman on 2 August 2002 in which he made the following allegations:

1. The European Parliament failed to reply to the complainant's e-mail of 3 June 2002.

2. The complainant was unable to reach the official in question, Ms. J, during the week she had asked him to telephone her back as an answering machine was operating throughout the week. The complainant was eventually informed by another official that Ms. J was on holiday. The complainant considers the official's conduct unfair, given that she must have known that she would be on holiday during the time she had asked the complainant to ring back.

THE INQUIRY

The European Parliament's opinion

The opinion of the European Parliament on the complaint was in summary the following:

The complainant had sent an e-mail to the traineeships office of the European Parliament on 13 February 2002. A reply to his e-mail containing the requested information had been sent the same day. The complainant was informed that applicants had to hand in their applications two months before the desired beginning of their study visit. Otherwise it would not be possible to deal with the application.

The European Parliament had no trace of any e-mail sent on 3 June 2002.

The complainant's second contact with the traineeships office had taken place by telephone on 22 July 2002. On this occasion the complainant had been advised to hand in his application. The latter had been received by the European Parliament on 24 July 2002. On 26 July 2002, the complainant had called the traineeships office. He had acknowledged that he had not been in a position to abide by the two-months time limit. The traineeships office had informed him that it would probably not be possible to allow him to make the study visit he had applied for and which he wished to start in mid-August. He nevertheless was advised to call back before 1 August 2002, prior to the responsible official's leave.

In relation to the difficulties allegedly encountered by the complainant to contact the traineeships office, the European Parliament explained that the traineeships office had no answering machine. On the contrary, in the absence of an official, a colleague answers his telephone calls, with a view to ensuring the continuity of the service.

On 22 August 2002, the complainant had visited the traineeships office in Luxembourg and expressed the wish to begin a study visit on 15 September 2002. Ms. J, the responsible official, had organised an interview with an administrator of Directorate-General Research of the European Parliament and asked the complainant to report to her about this interview.

On 27 August 2002, Ms. J had received an e-mail from the complainant. This e-mail had been sent on 23 August 2002 but had mistakenly been sent to another official with a very similar name. In this e-mail, the complainant reported very positively about the interview with the administrator of Directorate-General Research and informed Ms. J that he would contact the traineeships office by the beginning of September 2002. This never happened and no further contacts with the complainant had taken place.

The European Parliament also stated that the mere fact of handing in an application did not grant a right to carry out a study visit at the European Parliament. There was therefore no relation between the alleged maladministration by an official and the alleged loss of two weeks of work.

The complainant's observations

The European Ombudsman forwarded the European Parliament's opinion to the complainant with an invitation to make observations. No observations were received from the complainant.

THE DECISION

1 Failure to reply to an e-mail

1.1 The complainant alleged that the European Parliament had failed to reply to his e-mail of 3 June 2002.

1.2 The European Parliament stated that it had no trace of the e-mail allegedly sent on 3 June 2002 by the complainant. The traineeships office of the European Parliament had however received an e-mail request sent by the complainant on 13 February 2002. The complainant had been provided with the information he had requested by e-mail the same day.

1.3 The Ombudsman notes that there is evidence in the file as to the e-mail sent by the complainant on 13 February 2002 and regarding the reply provided for by the European Parliament on the same day. However, the complainant has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the e-mail of 3 June 2002 which according to his allegation remained unanswered. The Ombudsman thus considers that the complainant has not provided the Ombudsman with evidence that would support his allegation. The Ombudsman therefore concludes that there appears to be no maladministration as regards this aspect of the case.

2 Unfair behaviour of an official of the traineeships office

2.1 The complainant alleged that he was unable to reach the official in question, Ms. J, during the week she had asked him to telephone her back as an answering machine was operating throughout the week. According to the complainant, he was eventually informed by another official that Ms. J was on holiday. The complainant considered the official's conduct unfair, given that she must have known that she would be on holiday during the time she had asked the complainant to ring back.

2.2 The European Parliament stated that on 26 July 2002, the traineeships office informed the complainant that it would probably not be possible to allow him to make the study visit he had applied for on 24 July 2002 and which he wished to start in mid-August of the same year. The complainant had nevertheless been advised to call back before the beginning of Ms. J's holiday on 1 August 2002. Parliament also explained that the traineeships office does not have an answering machine and that in the absence of an official calls addressed to this official are answered by a colleague.

2.3 The Ombudsman notes that the complainant's account of information does not tally with the account provided by the European Parliament. The complainant has not put forward any further evidence to support his allegation. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that the complainant has not established his allegation. The Ombudsman therefore concludes that there appears to be no maladministration as regards this aspect of the case.

3 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Parliament. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The President of the European Parliament will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS