Strasbourg, 8 September 2005

Mr President,

On 25 April 2005, I informed you that I had decided to open a further own-initiative inquiry concerning the case of Mr B. that had already given rise to a previous own-initiative inquiry in 2003 (OI/2/2003/GG - Confidential). This decision was based on information that Mr B. had sent me on 1 February and 4 April 2005. Given that a special report had been submitted to the European Parliament in the latter case, I forwarded a copy of my letter of 25 April 2005 to Parliament for its information.

On 6 July 2005, the Commission sent its opinion.

On 8 July 2005, Mr B. wrote to me to inquire about progress on the case.

On 13 July 2005, I forwarded a copy of the Commission's opinion to Mr B. for his observations.

In an e-mail sent on 14 July 2005, Mr B. asked me to provide him with a copy of the report to which the Commission's opinion referred.

In my reply of 19 July 2005, I informed Mr B. that I had forwarded to him all the information that I had received from the Commission and that the "report" to which the Commission referred appeared to be his own e-mail to me of 4 April 2005.

On 21 July 2005, Mr B. sent me his observations on the Commission's opinion.

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

THE REASONS FOR THE OWN-INITIATIVE INQUIRY

The reasons for opening an own-initiative inquiry

On 6 October 2003, the Ombudsman received a complaint from Mr B., the Press and Information Officer at the European Commission’s Delegation in Islamabad. In this complaint, Mr B. alleged that his grading in Grade 2 had been a violation of the Commission’s rules and that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his nationality.

Article 195 of the EC Treaty provides for the European Ombudsman to receive complaints from "any citizen of the Union or any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State of the Union."

Given that Mr B. did not appear to fall into any of these categories, the Ombudsman informed him, on 21 October 2003, that he had no power to deal with his complaint.

However, given the seriousness of the issues raised by Mr B., the Ombudsman considered that these issues should be examined. The Ombudsman therefore decided to open an own-initiative inquiry into this matter (OI/2/2003/GG - Confidential).

This own-initiative inquiry resulted in a special report that the Ombudsman submitted to the European Parliament on 20 December 2004(1).

On 1 February 2005, Mr B. sent an e-mail in which he informed the Ombudsman that the Delegation in Islamabad was making his life more and more difficult since the Ombudsman had adopted his decision in his case. Mr B. took the view that he was being harassed and victimised by the Delegation which appeared to want to make him leave his job.

In his reply of 4 February 2005, the Ombudsman invited Mr B. to provide a detailed account of the actions taken by the Commission Delegation which he considered to constitute harassment in order to allow him to examine whether it could become necessary to open a new own-initiative inquiry or whether the relevant facts should be brought to the attention of the European Parliament. A copy of this reply was sent to both the Commission and the European Parliament.

In an e-mail sent on 4 April 2005, Mr B. provided more detailed information as to the actions he felt aggrieved by.

In the light of the contents of this e-mail, the Ombudsman came to the conclusion that an own-initiative inquiry was both necessary and appropriate.

THE INQUIRY

The information requested in the own-initiative inquiry

In his letter opening the inquiry, the Ombudsman asked the Commission to report on Mr B.’s administrative situation in the Delegation in Islamabad, particularly with regard to the facts alleged by Mr B. in his e-mails of 1 February and 4 April 2005.

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion, the Commission made the following comments:

The Commission required all staff members to be shown respect and had emphasised the need to prevent harassment, in particular through its Decision C (2003) 3644 of 22 October 2003 on the Commission's policy on the prevention of psychological harassment.

In the context of this Decision, which had been widely diffused through the different channels available to all staff members, an informal procedure had been established.

Thus, a member of staff who felt harassed not only had the possibility to lodge a formal complaint by referring to Articles 24 and 90 of the Staff Regulations, which Mr B. had not used, but could also choose to contact one of the following persons:

• the moral harassment cell in Directorate-General Personnel and Administration;
• one of the confidential counsellors foreseen in the Commission's Decision;
• the mediation service of the Commission;
• the head of the unit in charge of human resources at the Directorate-General concerned;
• the Assistant of the Directorate-General concerned; and
• the Investigation and Disciplinary Office (IDOC).

The Commission was unable to consider a situation for which no formal or informal complaint had been registered inside the Commission following one of the procedures available which would guarantee an objective analysis of the case. It should also be noted that the other parties concerned were members of the Commission's staff as well who also had rights and obligations. The Commission wished fully to respect the rights of staff belonging to both categories and could not therefore consider a situation without an appropriate two-party procedure.

The Commission's services would have examined the situation, requesting the members of staff accused by Mr B. to present their views on Mr B.'s statement in order to take appropriate measures. However, Mr B. had transmitted his report confidentially to the Ombudsman and the Commission's services had thus not been in a position to make an inquiry, in order to preserve the confidentiality requested by Mr B.

Therefore, at this stage, the Commission could not report on Mr B.'s administrative situation on the basis of Mr B.'s statement to the Ombudsman.

Mr B.'s observations

In his observations, Mr B. stressed that he had not asked for confidentiality in this particular case and that therefore there was no reason why the Commission should be unable to provide the report the Ombudsman had asked it to submit. Mr B. pointed out that he would like to make his observations after the Commission had submitted this report.

THE DECISION

1 The Ombudsman's own-initiative inquiry

1.1 On 25 April 2005, the Ombudsman opened an own-initiative inquiry regarding allegations of harassment that had been made by Mr B., whose case had already given rise to a previous own-initiative inquiry in 2003 (OI/2/2003/GG - Confidential). In his letter opening the inquiry, the Ombudsman asked the Commission to report on Mr B.’s administrative situation in the Delegation in Islamabad, particularly with regard to the facts alleged by Mr B. in his e-mails to the Ombudsman of 1 February 2005 and 4 April 2005.

1.2 In its opinion, the Commission pointed to its Decision C (2003) 3644 of 22 October 2003 on the Commission's policy on the prevention of psychological harassment and to the various possibilities available to members of staff who considered that they were being harassed. The Commission submitted that it was unable to consider a situation for which no formal or informal complaint had been registered inside the Commission following one of the procedures available which would guarantee an objective analysis of the case. It noted that its services would have examined the situation by requesting the members of staff accused by Mr B. to present their views on Mr B.'s statement in order to take appropriate measures. The Commission added that it had however not been in a position to make an inquiry in the present case since Mr B. had transmitted his report confidentially to the Ombudsman. It concluded that at this stage it could therefore not report on Mr B.'s administrative situation on the basis of Mr B.'s statement to the Ombudsman.

1.3 In his observations, Mr B. stressed that he had not asked for confidentiality in this particular case and that therefore there was no reason why the Commission should be unable to provide the report the Ombudsman had asked it to submit. Mr B. pointed out that he would like to make his observations after the Commission had submitted this report.

1.4 The Ombudsman is not convinced by the Commission's argument that it was prevented from dealing with the matter on account of the confidentiality of Mr B.'s approaches to the Ombudsman. It is true that Mr B.'s first e-mail to the Ombudsman of 1 February 2005 was marked confidential and that both this e-mail and the subsequent one of 5 April 2005 were sent in the context of the previous own-initiative inquiry that had been confidential. However, it clearly emerges from these messages that Mr B. wished his allegations of harassment to be dealt with. If the Commission should nevertheless have had doubts as to whether the presumed confidentiality of Mr B.'s e-mails to the Ombudsman prevented it from dealing with the matter, it could easily have clarified the issue by simply contacting Mr B., a member of its staff. Such a way of proceeding would have been all the more appropriate in view of the fact that the Ombudsman had explicitly asked the Commission, in his letter of 25 April 2005, to report on Mr B.’s administrative situation in the Delegation in Islamabad, particularly with regard to the facts alleged by Mr B. in his e-mails to the Ombudsman of 1 February 2005 and 4 April 2005 . However, no such effort to clarify any doubt that may have existed appears to have been made by the Commission.

1.5 The Ombudsman notes that the Commission has nevertheless made it clear that the confidentiality issue was the only problem that in its view prevented it from opening an inquiry into the allegations of harassment that had been made by Mr B. Given that Mr B. has expressly confirmed, in his observations, that he does not seek confidentiality, the Ombudsman trusts that the Commission will now carry out a thorough and appropriate inquiry into the allegations made by Mr B.

2 Conclusion

2.1 In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that there are no grounds for further inquiries in this matter at present . The Ombudsman therefore closes the present own-initiative inquiry.

2.2 However, the Ombudsman invites the Commission to submit a report on the results of its inquiry into Mr B.'s allegations of harassment to him once this inquiry has been completed, so as to allow him to decide whether it will be necessary to open a new own-initiative inquiry in this case.

2.3 A copy of this decision will be sent to both Mr B. and the European Parliament.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) The special report is available on the Ombudsman's website (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu).