Dear Mrs G.,
Dear Mr M.,
Dear Mr S.,
On 19 January 2000, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning a delay of the ECB in issuing an administrative circular specifying the rules and procedures for recruitment and for internal promotion. You alleged that this failure constitutes unnecessary delay.
On 9 February 2000, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Central Bank. The ECB sent its opinion on 31 May 2000 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. 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

In January 2000, the complainants contacted the European Ombudsman concerning the issuing of an administrative circular specifying the rules and procedures for recruitment and for internal promotion in the European Central Bank (the Bank).
The complainants, acting on behalf of the Union of the Staff of the European Central Bank (U.S.E.), referred to the Bank's Rules of Procedure of April 1999, which state that:
"Members of staff shall be selected, appointed and promoted with due regard to the principles of professional qualification, publicity, transparency, equal access and non-discrimination. An Administrative Circular shall further specify the rules and procedures for recruitment and for internal promotion." (Emphasis added).
The complainants stated that such circular had not yet been issued, despite:
a) the fact that the U.S.E. had on several occasions highlighted to the Bank the importance of adopting a circular;
b) the fact that a massive recruitment campaign was underway;
c) the results of an independent expert report, commissioned by the Bank, which indicated a need to improve the recruitment procedures.
The complainants therefore alleged that the fact that the Bank had not, at the time of the complaint, issued a circular, amounted to maladministration in the form of unnecessary delay.

THE INQUIRY

The European Central Bank's opinion
The complaint was forwarded to the Bank. In its opinion, the Bank made in summary the following points.
The ECB was established on 1 June 1998, and has grown extremely rapidly from 170 members of staff at the date of its establishment to over 750. Under such circumstances, it cannot be expected that a corporate culture was sufficiently mature and stable to be codified in an administrative circular. This is all the more true for a Community body where management and staff come from all fifteen Member States of the European Union, and from both the public and the private sector.
Moreover, it is interesting to note that the Community institutions established in the late fifties have faced a comparable situation. During the period before the adoption of the staff regulations - which then contained more detailed rules applicable to recruitment and promotion - the recruitment procedure did not exist in the form it took later in the staff regulations.
An early codification of practices would not have helped to serve the specific needs of the Bank in meeting its urgent and high recruitment targets. Time is needed to create awareness of advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches that can be taken to these issues and to assess through practical experience which approach would perhaps best suit the needs of the organisation and might be the best fit with the overall direction which the organisation wishes to take on human resource management issues.
Furthermore, the absence of the administrative circular should not lead to the assumption that recruitment and promotion are arbitrary. Whilst no administrative circular has been adopted so far, the Bank has established guidelines for the recruitment process. These encompass: standard format for the vacancy notice, processing of applications, selection of applicants, rejection of applications, organisation of the interviews, tests and languages, interview report, offering of position, etc.
Finally, the preparation of a draft circular has been initiated. A first dialogue with the Staff Committee and the Union of the Staff of the Bank has taken place and a draft Administrative Circular has been prepared. (A copy of the draft was enclosed to the opinion).
The complainants' observations
The complainants do not appear to have submitted observations.

THE DECISION

1 The allegation of unnecessary delay
1.1 The complainants have alleged that the fact that the Bank had not, at the time of the complaint, issued an administrative circular specifying the rules and procedures for recruitment and for internal promotion amounted to maladministration in the form of unnecessary delay. The Bank has rejected the allegation.
1.2 Specific time limits for the matter here concerned are found in neither the Rules of Procedures of the Bank, nor in general principles of good administration. The question of unreasonable delay must therefore be assessed in the light of the specific circumstances of the case.
1.3 The complainants would appear to suggest that the Bank should have issued the administrative circular in time to enable its application for the early and very large recruitment campaigns of the Bank.
1.4 The Bank has responded that the administrative circular is intended, at least in part, to codify and benefit from the early recruitment practices and experiences. The Bank has suggested that it would have been erroneous to attempt the creation of a complete circular before such practices and experiences could be taken into account.
1.5 On the basis of the explanations put forward by the Bank, the Ombudsman concludes that the delay in issuing the Administrative Circular does not give rise to a finding of maladministration. It should be added that the present dispute could possibly have been avoided if the Rules of Procedure of the Bank had mentioned more explicitly that the circular was intended to be issued only subsequent to the early recruitment experiences.
2 Conclusion
On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Central Bank. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
The President of the European Central Bank will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely
Jacob SÖDERMAN