Dear Mr L.,
On 12 July 1999 you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman on behalf of your daughter Anne-Sophie Leonhardt, concerning the decision of the European Commission DG IX (Personnel and Administration) to declare Ms Leonhardt ineligible for a student job during summer holidays at the European Commission and the fact that the Commission has not replied to your fax of 10 June 1999.
On 5 October 1999, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 3 January 2000 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations which you sent on 7 February 2000. I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant alleged an instance of maladministration in that eligibility for student jobs during summer holidays at the Commission is solely reserved for children of Commission employees. In May 1999 the complainant's daughter had applied for a student job during summer holidays at the Commission but was not eligible, because these summer jobs are reserved for children of Commission officials. The complainant is an employee at the European Parliament.
The complainant also alleged lack of reply to the fax he sent on 10 June 1999 to DG IX. In his fax, the complainant requested DG IX to investigate the manner of recruiting personnel for summer jobs at the Commission.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion
In its opinion the Commission made, in summary, the following remarks:

(i) The student jobs were advertised through internal information channels for the personnel of the European Commission.

It is true that the Commission reserves student jobs during the summer holidays for children of officials and agents of the Commission. The Commission regretted that this way children of employees in other institutions are excluded. However, the Commission was of the view that all changes to this practice would be unreasonable and contrary to the principles of proportionality and cost-efficiency.

Taking into account the limited number of jobs (about 60 in July and 60 in August), an opening for the entire personnel of the Community institutions would provoke a great number of applications and unnecessary frustration for the candidates.

The daily allowance (1.500 FB) is inferior to the conditions set by the Brussels authorities and therefore cannot be considered an advantage in favour of officials and agents of the Commission.

The limited access reduces the costs and administrative effort linked to the operation. This would not be the case if the system would be open to all students of the European Union.

The Commission has no intention at this stage to modify the rules on eligibility for the few student jobs in its services. The Commission is of the view that it is up to each institution to decide whether to offer student jobs and how to do so. The alternative would most probably be simply to abandon the use of this type of services.

(ii) As regards the fax of 10 June 1999, the Commission regretted that the complainant did not receive a formal reply confirming on a higher level the negative reply he had received the same day on the telephone.

The complainant's observations
The complainant maintained his complaint. He considered that the explanations put forward by the Commission were self-contradictory. If the compensation is modest the only students interested would be ones living in the Brussels area. There would in any case be no need to organise a big campaign for recruitment.

THE DECISION

1 Ineligibility for a student job at the European Commission
1.1 The complainant alleged an instance of maladministration in that eligibility for student jobs during summer holidays at the Commission is solely reserved for children of Commission employees.
1.2 In its opinion the Commission stated that is true that it reserves student jobs during the summer holidays for children of officials and agents of the Commission. The Commission regretted that this way children of employees in other institutions are excluded. However, the Commission was of the view that all changes to this practice would be unreasonable and contrary to the principles of proportionality and cost-efficiency.
1.3 Principles of good administrative behaviour require the Commission to respect the principle of equality of treatment in its activities. Members of the public who are in the same situation should be treated in a similar manner. If any difference in treatment is made, the Commission should ensure that it is justified by the objective relevant features of the particular case. To make eligibility for paid employment by a public body dependent on a family connection violates the principle of equality of treatment.
1.4 The Commission's opinion referred to the principles of proportionality and cost-efficiency. However, these principles have no bearing on a case which involves a discriminatory practice by a public body using public money.
1.5 The Ombudsman therefore finds, that the fact that the Commission as a public body using public money reserves student jobs during the summer holidays solely for children of officials and agents of the Commission, constitutes an instance of maladministration.
2 Alleged lack of reply
2.1 The complainant claimed that he did not receive a reply from the Commission services to his fax of 10 June 1999.
2.2 In its opinion the Commission regretted the fact that the complainant did not receive a formal reply confirming on a higher level the negative reply he had received the same day on the telephone.
2.3 Principles of good administration require that correspondence from the citizens to the Commission administration receive a reply within a reasonable time. However, the Commission has given a reply to the complainant's fax of 10 June 1999 the same day on the telephone and it has regretted the fact that the complainant did not receive a formal written reply. Therefore, the Ombudsman's inquiries have not revealed an instance of maladministration in relation to this aspect of the case.
3 Conclusion
On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, it is necessary to make the following critical remark:

Principles of good administrative behaviour require the Commission to respect the principle of equality of treatment in its activities. Members of the public who are in the same situation should be treated in a similar manner. If any difference in treatment is made, the Commission should ensure that it is justified by the objective relevant features of the particular case. To make eligibility for paid employment by a public body dependent on a family connection violates the principle of equality of treatment.

The Commission's opinion referred to the principles of proportionality and cost-efficiency. However, these principles have no bearing on a case which involves a discriminatory practice by a public body using public money.

The Ombudsman therefore finds, that the fact that the Commission as a public body using public money reserves student jobs during the summer holidays solely for children of officials and agents of the Commission, constitutes an instance of maladministration.

Given that the complaint concerned an individual case in the past, it is not appropriate to pursue a friendly settlement of the matter. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
The President of the Commission will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely
Jacob SÖDERMAN