Strasbourg, 30 October 2006

Dear Mr X,

On 6 June 2005, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman on behalf of European Commission trainees in Grange, Ireland, concerning the monthly grant paid to Commission trainees.

On 19 July 2005, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 13 July 2005. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 30 August 2005.

On 25 October 2005, I wrote to the Commission, asking for further information in relation to the complaint. The Commission sent its reply on 5 December 2005. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 31 January 2006.

I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made. I apologise for the time it has taken to deal with your complaint.

THE COMPLAINT

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

At the time of submitting his complaint, he worked as a trainee for Directorate F in the European Commission's Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection, which is situated in Grange, Ireland.

All Commission trainees received a monthly grant of EUR 900, regardless of where they were based. This grant appeared to have been calculated on the basis of the costs of living in Brussels and Luxembourg and not of those in Ireland. It had come to his attention that Commission officials working in Grange, Ireland, received a salary that was 22.3% higher than that of their Brussels counterparts because of higher costs of living in Ireland. He argued that the costs of living should be taken into account also for trainees based outside Brussels and Luxembourg.

He had turned to the head of the Commission Traineeships Office regarding the matter, who empathised with him but explained that the Commission's policy was to provide an identical level of grant for all trainees, independently of their place of assignment.

The complainant alleged that the Commission's practice not to weight the monthly grant paid to its trainees on the basis of the costs of living in the place of assignment was unfair.

The complainant claimed that the Commission should put in place a more just system for paying its trainees, depending on their place of assignment.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion, the Commission made, in summary, the following comments:

Trainees undertaking in-service training under the Commission's official traineeship scheme are not statutory staff. They do not receive a salary, nor are they subject to any arrangements or special conditions or other regulations that apply to officials and other servants of the European Communities. Trainees receive a grant, which currently amounts to EUR 900 per month. By definition, a grant is a form of financial assistance, not a salary. In addition, no social security contributions or taxes are deducted from these grants.

The level of the grant is subject to budget limitations and, given that the placement only lasts five months, it is not the Commission's intention to establish a system of grants where the amount of financial assistance depends on the trainees' place of assignment. No analogy could be drawn with the situation of statutory staff, who are actually employed by the institutions usually for long periods. Consequently, this financial assistance would remain the same for all trainees for the near future.

All trainees are well aware, well in advance of accepting their traineeship, of the amount of the grant that they will receive during their traineeship as well as their place of assignment.

The complainant's observations

In his observations, the complainant made, in summary, the following remarks:

It is true, as stated by the Commission, that all trainees are well aware, well in advance of accepting their traineeship, of the amount of the grant that they will receive during their traineeship as well as their place of assignment. However, trainees do not know before their traineeship that Commission staff are paid according to the cost of living of the country in which they are based. This creates an imbalance as trainees learn during their traineeship that, for everyone else, the cost of living is taken into account when calculating salaries.

At the time of submitting his observations on the Commission's opinion, he had finished his traineeship with the Commission. He argued, however, that new trainees who were to arrive in Grange might encounter significant financial difficulties without financial assistance from a bank or from their family. This constituted a risk that the traineeship scheme would become class based since it is very difficult to live in Ireland or in the United Kingdom on a grant of EUR 900 per month without external financial support.

Further inquiries

After careful consideration of the Commission's opinion and the complainant's observations, it appeared that further inquiries were necessary.

The Ombudsman's request for further information

The Ombudsman therefore asked the Commission to comment on the complainant's arguments that (i) since the trainee grant is not weighted on the basis of the costs of living at the place of assignment, Commission trainees in Grange, Ireland, might encounter significant financial difficulties without external financial support; and that (ii) this fact constitutes a risk that the traineeship scheme would become class based.

The Ombudsman also asked the Commission to answer the following questions:

1. Do all Commission trainees receive a grant of EUR 900 a month, irrespective of their place of assignment ( Member States or third countries)?
2. How did the Commission determine the amount of the grant paid to its trainees?
3. When deciding on the amount of the grant, did the Commission take into account any level of subsistence minimum, and if so, how was the subsistence minimum calculated?

Finally, the Commission was invited to comment on the possible relevance, in the present case, of the 10-year work programme on the contribution of education and training to the Lisbon strategy, in which the Council and the Commission laid down three major objectives, one of which is to ensure that education and training systems are accessible to all(1).

The Commission's reply

In its reply, the Commission made the following comments:

As regards the argument that, without a weighted grant, trainees in Grange, Ireland, might encounter significant financial difficulties, the Commission reiterated its view that trainees following in-service training under the Commission's official traineeship scheme are not statutory staff. They do not receive a salary and no social security or tax deductions are made. Nor are they subject to any of the arrangements, special conditions or other regulations that apply to officials and other servants of the European Communities. The trainees are awarded a grant, which by definition is financial assistance, not a salary.

As regards the complainant's argument that the lack of weighting constitutes a risk of making the traineeship scheme class based, the Commission stated that it was well aware that it is not easy for trainees to live on the grant in Brussels, Luxembourg or any other EU city where trainees may be located. The Commission has made efforts to improve the situation, but it is restricted by the need to maintain the total number of trainees recruited annually and by budgetary limits.

Since 2002, all trainees participating in the Commission's official traineeship scheme are awarded a grant. This was not previously the case. Due to the necessity to provide a grant to all recruited trainees, the amount of the grant remained unchanged for six years (EUR 694 a month during 1997-2002). However, once this goal was achieved in 2002, all additional budget increases were used to increase the grant. As a result, the grant was increased to EUR 735 a month in 2003, to EUR 800 in 2004 and to EUR 900 for 2005. It is expected to increase to EUR 950 in 2006. The aim is to align the grant awarded to Commission trainees with a fixed percentage of the basic salary of a junior administrator, a practice currently followed by the European Parliament (for one category of their trainees) and by the Ombudsman. It should also be noted that the number of trainees recruited annually in the Commission (1 200) is much higher than that in the other institutions; meaning that a substantial increase across the board is therefore not feasible without a corresponding budget increase. Within the framework of inter-institutional co-operation, the Commission intends to propose that all EU institutions harmonise the grant given to all trainees and align it as a fixed percentage of the basic salary of a junior administrator, which would keep it in line with the cost of living.

An analysis of a poll taken amongst trainees who arrived in October 2004, when the grant was EUR 800 a month, showed that 69% of the trainees had to supplement the grant in order to live comfortably. An analysis of a poll amongst trainees who arrived in March 2005 (when the grant was raised to EUR 900 a month) showed that this percentage had decreased to 55%. Of the October 2004 trainees, 36% were supported by their family, against 26% of the March 2005 trainees. Others used their own means to complement the grant, by using their own savings earned before the traineeship or by working during weekends, and so on.

Although this cannot be considered entirely satisfactory, it should be regarded as clear progress and if the Commission manages to increase the grant as explained above, the percentage of trainees who will need to supplement their grant in order to live comfortably is expected to be further reduced.

The argument that the traineeship could become a class-based system is therefore refuted by the Commission, which is making a huge effort to raise the level of the grant given to its trainees. Furthermore, a similar argument could be used against many high schools or universities, where students have to pay very high fees in order to study and where they also need the support of their families.

The Commission replied affirmatively to the Ombudsman's question whether all its trainees receive a grant of EUR 900 a month irrespective of their place of assignment, pointing out that, of the 600 trainees recruited for each trainee period (1 200 in total annually), only a small percentage of trainees (less than 10%) is placed outside Brussels, the majority of whom are in Luxembourg.

The amount to be paid to trainees is determined by the budget fixed each year by the budgetary authorities and by the number of recruited trainees. The number of approximately 1 200 trainees recruited each year is likely to remain fairly constant, taking into consideration the needs of the service, the number of applications received, the infrastructure available, and the Commission's absorption capacity. It follows, therefore, that the major impediment to raising the level of the grant is the budget available.

When deciding on the amount of the grant, the Commission thus did not take into account any minimum level of subsistence. However, the current trainee grant is higher than the minimum salary in Belgium.

As regards the relevance of the 10-year work programme on the contribution of education and training to the Lisbon strategy, the Commission has, by adopting new rules governing the trainee programme on 2 March 2005, amongst other aims, formalised the necessity of compatibility with the new educational systems in line with the Bologna process and abolished the age limit in order for training to be accessible to everyone in the spirit of lifelong learning.

The complainant's observations

In his observations, the complainant made, in summary, the following remarks:

The Commission did not provide an adequate response to his concern that the traineeship scheme in Ireland and the United Kingdom could become a class-based system. The Commission pointed out that the level of the grant has increased over the previous years, but it did not acknowledge or take into account the basic fact that the costs of living are higher in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Instead of addressing the problem, the Commission perpetuates an already imbalanced system.

THE DECISION

1 The allegedly unfair practice not to weight traineeship grants

1.1 The complaint concerns the monthly grant paid to European Commission trainees. According to the complainant, who used to work as a trainee for the Commission's Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection in Grange, Ireland, all Commission trainees received a monthly grant of EUR 900, regardless of where they were based, whereas Commission officials working in Grange received a salary that was 22.3% higher than that of their Brussels counterparts because of higher costs of living in Ireland. The complainant considered that the costs of living should be taken into account also for trainees based outside Brussels and Luxembourg. The complainant alleged that the Commission's practice not to weight the monthly grant paid to its trainees on the basis of the costs of living in the place of assignment was unfair.

1.2 The Commission argued that trainees undertaking in-service training under the Commission's official traineeship scheme are not statutory staff. They do not receive a salary but a grant, which currently amounts to EUR 900 per month. By definition, a grant is a form of financial assistance, not a salary. The level of the grant is subject to budget limitations and given that the placement only lasts for five months, it is not the Commission's intention to establish a system of grants where the amount of financial assistance depends on the trainees' place of assignment. No analogy may be drawn with the situation of statutory staff, who are actually employed by the institutions usually for long periods. Trainees are not subject to the regulations that apply to officials and other servants of the European Communities. All trainees are well aware of the amount of the grant that they will receive during their traineeship, as well as their place of assignment, well in advance of accepting the traineeship with the Commission.

1.3 In his observations, the complainant argued that the fact that traineeship grants are not weighted on the basis of the costs of living constitutes a potential risk that the traineeship scheme would become class based since it is very difficult to live in Ireland or the United Kingdom on a grant of EUR 900 per month without external financial support.

1.4 As part of his further inquiries, the Ombudsman asked the Commission to comment on the arguments put forward in the complainant's observations, as well as to answer certain questions and to comment on the possible relevance, in the present case, of the 10-year work programme on the contribution of education and training to the Lisbon strategy, in which the Council and the Commission laid down three major objectives, one of which is to ensure that education and training systems are accessible to all(2).

1.5 As regards the complainant's argument that, without a weighted grant, trainees in Grange, Ireland, might encounter significant financial difficulties, the Commission reiterated its view that trainees following in-service training under the Commission's official traineeship scheme are not statutory staff. They do not receive a salary and no social security or tax deductions are made. Nor are they subject to any of the arrangements, special conditions or other regulations that apply to officials and other servants of the European Communities. The trainees are awarded a grant, which by definition is financial assistance, not a salary.

1.6 As regards the complainant's argument that the lack of weighting constitutes a risk that the traineeship scheme would become class based, the Commission stated that it was well aware that it is not easy for trainees to live on the grant in Brussels, Luxembourg or any other EU city where trainees may be located. The Commission has made efforts to improve the situation, but it is restricted by the need to maintain the total number of trainees recruited annually and by budgetary limits. Since 2002, all trainees participating in the Commission's official traineeship scheme are awarded a grant. This was not previously the case. The grant remained unchanged for six years (EUR 694 a month during 1997-2002) but was increased to EUR 735 a month in 2003, to EUR 800 in 2004 and to EUR 900 for 2005. It is expected to increase to EUR 950 in 2006. Within the framework of inter-institutional co-operation, the Commission intends to propose that all EU institutions align and harmonise the grant given to all trainees as a fixed percentage of the basic salary of a junior administrator, which would constitute a method to keep it in line with the cost of living. An analysis of a poll taken amongst trainees who arrived in October 2004, when the grant was EUR 800 a month, showed that 69% of the trainees had to supplement the grant in order to live comfortably. An analysis of a poll amongst trainees who arrived in March 2005 (when the grant was raised to EUR 900 a month) showed that this percentage had decreased to 55%. The argument that the traineeship could become a class-based system is therefore refuted by the Commission, which points out that it is making a huge effort to raise the level of the grant given to its trainees. Furthermore, a similar argument could be used against many high schools or universities, where students have to pay very high fees in order to study and where they also need the support of their families.

1.7 The Commission replied affirmatively to the Ombudsman's question whether all its trainees receive a grant of EUR 900 a month irrespective of their place of assignment (Member States or third countries), pointing out that, of the 600 trainees recruited for each trainee period (1 200 in total annually), only a small percentage of trainees (less than 10%) is placed outside Brussels, the majority of whom are in Luxembourg.

1.8 In response to the Ombudsman's question how the Commission determined the amount of the grant to be paid to its trainees, the Commission explained that the amount is determined by the budget fixed each year by the budgetary authorities and by the number of trainees recruited. The number of approximately 1 200 trainees recruited each year is likely to remain fairly constant. It follows, therefore, that the major impediment to raising the level of the grant is the budget available.

1.9 The Commission's reply to the Ombudsman's question whether it took into account any level of subsistence minimum when deciding on the amount of the grant was therefore that it did not. It argued, however, the current trainee grant is higher than the minimum salary in Belgium.

1.10 As regards the relevance of the 10-year work programme on the contribution of education and training to the Lisbon strategy, the Commission argued that it has, by adopting new rules governing the traineeship programme on 2 March 2005, amongst other aims, formalised the necessity of compatibility with the new educational systems in line with the Bologna process and abolished the age limit in order for training to be accessible to everyone in the spirit of lifelong learning.

1.11 In his observations on the Commission's response to the Ombudsman's further inquiries, the complainant argued that the Commission did not provide an adequate response to his concern that the traineeship scheme in Ireland and the United Kingdom could become a class-based system. The Commission pointed out that the level of the grant has increased over the previous years, but it did not acknowledge or take into account the basic fact that the costs of living are higher in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Instead of addressing the problem, the Commission perpetuates an already imbalanced system.

1.12 The Ombudsman notes that Commission trainees are not covered by the Staff Regulations or other rules applicable to officials and other servants of the European Communities, such as Council Regulation No 2182/2003 of 8 December 2003 adjusting with effect from 1 January 2004 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Communities and the weightings applied thereto(3). The Ombudsman is not aware of any rule or principle that would require the rules applicable to officials to be applied by analogy to trainees.

1.13 The question thus remains whether it is unfair, for any other reason, not to weight the traineeship grant on the basis of the costs of living in the place of assignment. The Ombudsman considers reasonable the Commission's stance that the grant is meant to constitute financial assistance and not a salary. He further notes that the traineeship only lasts five months, which constitutes a limited period of time, and that the traineeship is likely to be beneficial to trainees also in aspects other than financial. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman would be concerned if the Commission's trainees were not able to participate in the traineeship scheme without encountering serious financial difficulties or if there were to be a genuine risk of the traineeship scheme becoming class based.

1.14 The Ombudsman notes, however, that the Commission has considerably increased the grant amount over the last few years and that the current amount of EUR 900 a month (EUR 950 in 2006) cannot be considered to be insignificant. He further notes that the Commission intends to align the grant amount with a percentage of the basic salary of a junior administrator in order to establish a method to keep it in line with the cost of living in general. Most importantly, however, the Ombudsman considers that the complainant has not submitted any evidence to suggest or to prove that it would not be possible for a trainee to carry out his traineeship in Grange without incurring serious financial difficulties.

1.15 In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that the complainant has not established that the Commission's practice not to weight the monthly grant paid to its trainees on the basis of the costs of living in the place of assignment is unfair.

1.16 In view of the above, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration by the Commission regarding the matter.

2 The complainant's claim

2.1 In his complaint, the complainant claimed that the Commission should put in place a more just system for paying its trainees, depending on their place of assignment.

2.2 The Ombudsman considers that, in view of the finding of no maladministration in part 1 above, the complainant's claim cannot be sustained.

3 Conclusion

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

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

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) See, for example, document 6111/02 (Presse 29), 2408th Council meeting, Education and Youth Affairs, Brussels, 14 February 2002, available on the Council's website (http://ec.europa.eu/education/ policies/2010/doc/10_year_en.pdf).

(2) See, for example, document 6111/02 (Presse 29), 2408th Council meeting, Education and Youth Affairs, Brussels, 14 February 2002, available on the Council's website (http://ec.europa.eu/education/ policies/2010/doc/10_year_en.pdf).

(3) OJ 2003 L 327, p. 3.