Strasbourg, 7 February 2008

Dear Mr B.,

On 20 February 2006, you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission alleging that the Commission's Delegation in Trinidad and Tobago treated you in a discriminatory manner by not granting you, from 1 January 2006, a five percentage-point increase in your remuneration, which would correspond to the increase in the allowance for living conditions granted to staff assigned to that Delegation.

On 25 April 2006, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission, requesting that the latter provide me with its opinion by 31 July 2006.

On 13 September 2006, you sent me an e-mail asking for information in relation to your complaint. My services responded to you on 18 September 2006 stating that I had not yet received the Commission’s opinion and that I would forward it to you as soon as I received it.

On 28 September 2006, the Commission sent me its opinion in French. On 8 October 2006, it sent me its opinion in Spanish, which I forwarded to you with an invitation to make observations.

You sent me your observations on the Commission's opinion on 27 October 2006 and 13 November 2006.

On 12 December 2006, you sent me an e-mail asking for information in relation to your complaint. My services responded to you on 19 December 2006.

On 7 February 2007, you sent me an e-mail asking for information in relation to your complaint.

On 15 February 2007, I asked the Commission to reply, by 31 March 2007, to further inquiries relating to your complaint. I informed you accordingly.

On 8 March 2007, the Commission requested an extension of the deadline to respond to my further inquires. An extension was granted until 30 April 2007.

On 30 April 2007, the Commission requested a further extension of the deadline. This further extension was granted until 31 May 2007.

On 20 June 2007, you sent me an e-mail asking for information in relation to your complaint. On the same date, my services informed you that, given that the Commission had not yet responded to my further inquires, I had written to it asking for a reply to my further inquires by no later than 15 July 2007, or, alternatively, for an explanation concerning when a response would be provided.

The Commission sent me its response on 2 July 2007, which I forwarded to you with a request that you send me your observations in relation thereto by 31 August 2007.

You sent me your observations in relation to the Commission's reply on 7 July 2007.

On 16 September 2007, you sent me an e-mail asking for information in relation to your complaint. I responded to you on 24 September 2007.

On 22 December 2007, you sent me an e-mail asking for information in relation to your complaint. My services responded to you on 8 January 2008.

On 22 January 2008, you sent me an e-mail confirming that you would like to receive the present decision in English. On 23 January 2008, you sent me an e-mail confirming your change of address.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The relevant facts according to the complainant can be summarised as follows:

The complainant worked as a Young Expert in the European Commission's Delegation in Trinidad and Tobago ("the Delegation"). The complainant stated that, on the basis of Article 10(1) of Annex X of the Staff Regulations, officials, contract staff and temporary staff of the Commission assigned to posts outside the EU shall be paid an allowance for living conditions at a rate specified in accordance with their place of employment. The Appointing Authority ("AIPN") must review that allowance each year and, where appropriate, adjust it after obtaining the opinion of the Staff Committee. On 15 January 2006, the AIPN adopted a decision fixing, from 1 January 2006, the allowance for living conditions for countries outside the EU. The rate established for Trinidad and Tobago was 15%, which represented an increment of five percentage points compared to the previous year (the rate for 2005 was 10%). The second year of the complainant's contract started before the adoption of the AIPN's decision.

On 2 February 2006, the complainant wrote an e-mail to the Commission ("Help-Desk" for Young Experts), asking whether he would also be entitled to the five percentage-point increase in the allowance for living conditions. On 6 February 2006, the Commission replied that, as the complainant had already been informed, on the anniversary of the signing of his contract, the allowance for living conditions for Trinidad and Tobago was still 10%. Therefore, the 10% rate would apply for the duration of the second year of his contract. In a further e-mail of 7 February 2006, the Commission explained that Young Experts were not Commission officials and that the differences in their conditions of employment were completely lawful, provided that the terms of their contract were respected. The Commission pointed out that the "General terms and conditions applicable to the Experts" clearly set out that any increase or decrease in the rate of the allowance for living conditions in the country of employment of the Young Expert shall apply automatically on the anniversary of the signing of the contract.

The complainant argued that he was the only worker in the Delegation who had not been entitled to receive the five percentage-point increase in the allowance for living conditions. Even colleagues whose contracts were signed before the AIPN's decision, were granted that increase. In his view, he, together with the rest of his colleagues, experienced the increase in the cost of living in Trinidad and Tobago.

The complainant considered that he was discriminated against on the grounds of the type of contract he had, and considered this discrimination to be unfair. Furthermore, he recalled that the decision of 15 January 2006 did not require that any increase or decrease in the rate of the allowance for living conditions in the country of employment of the Young Expert shall apply automatically on the anniversary of the signing of the contract.

The complainant mentioned that, as he was not a Commission official, he was not subject to Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, which relates to complaints and appeals against decisions of the AIPN, and that, therefore, he had contacted the Commission's Help-Desk for Experts.

The complainant alleged that the Commission treated him in a discriminatory manner by not granting him, as from 1 January 2006, the five percentage-point increase corresponding to the allowance for living conditions set out in the decision of the AIPN of 15 January 2005 for the staff assigned to the Delegation. He claimed that he should be entitled to the increase in question.

In his letter to the Commission, the Ombudsman asked the latter to comment expressly on any internal procedures through which the complainant could have sought an amicable solution to his dispute with the Commission.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

The Commission’s opinion can be summarised as follows:

In its opinion of 28 September 2006, the Commission stated that the employment of Young Experts by a delegation is governed by contract law, namely, by the "General Terms and Conditions Governing Fixed-Term Contracts for Young Experts Assigned to a Delegation" and any specific provisions agreed with Young Experts when they are hired.

Article 28.3 of the General Terms and Conditions, which refers to "[a]llowance for difficult living conditions" states that "[a]ny increase or decrease in the rate of the allowance for difficult living conditions in the country of employment of the Expert shall apply automatically on the anniversary of the Contract."

The complainant signed a first contract on 8 November 2004 for a period of one year. That contract was renewed on 8 November 2005 also for a period of one year. On that date, the rate of indemnity for the cost of living for officials and other agents, which by analogy applied to Young Experts, was set at 10%. In accordance with Article 28.3 of the General Terms and Conditions, that rate was applied to the complainant for the duration of his renewed contract, that is, until 7 November 2006. The complainant was thus treated in the same manner as other Young Experts assigned to a delegation. His allegation that the Commission had treated him in a discriminatory manner was thus unfounded.

The Commission did not comment on the existence of any internal procedures through which the complainant could have sought an amicable solution to his dispute with the Commission.

The complainant's observations

The observations of the complainant can be summarised as follows:

The complainant stated that, when his contract was renewed in November 2005, the Commission's decision to increase the living allowance had already been agreed but it had not yet been published. Thus, despite being aware that, in the coming months, the cost of living allowance was going to be increased, he was obliged to renew his contract at the lower rate.

The complainant stated that his complaint did not concern the clauses of the contract per se, but rather their legality and fairness. He stated that Young Experts were, like officials, expatriated. He noted that the Commission discriminated against one type of employee, that is, Young Experts, by not allowing them the opportunity to review the contract during its term in order to adapt it to the actual conditions applicable in the country of destination.

The complainant stated that the analogy which was applied as regards allowances granted to officials was selective.

The complainant noted that he did not allege that he was treated differently from other Young Experts but rather that he was treated differently from other personnel in the Delegation.

The complainant noted that two of this colleagues who had signed "contractual agent" contracts when he had signed his own contract, were granted increases at the same time that officials at the Delegation were granted an increase.

The complainant argued that Article 28.3 of the General Terms and Conditions stated that the allowance for difficult living conditions shall apply, by analogy, to Young Experts. He stated that, while this analogy was expressly set out in the General Terms and Conditions, Young Experts were, in practice, discriminated against, not only as regards officials, but also as regards other personnel in the Delegation.

Finally, the complainant noted that the cost of living allowance was increased to 20% two months after the allowance was increased to 15%. The complainant stated that this implied that he should have obtained an increase in his salary of five percentage points for the first two months of 2006, and an increase of ten percentage points for the remaining months of his contract, that is, until 7 November 2006.

Further Inquiries

In the letter opening his inquiry, the Ombudsman specifically asked the Commission to include, in its opinion, an explanation as regards any internal procedures through which the complainant could have sought an amicable resolution of his dispute with the Commission.

In its reply of 28 September 2006, the Commission did not provide any information as regards this issue. The Ombudsman therefore asked whether the Commission could, by no later than 31 March 2007, provide him with information on the existence of any internal procedures through which the complainant could have sought an amicable resolution of his dispute with the Commission as regards this case.

The Commission's reply to the Further Inquiries

The response of the Commission to the further inquiries can be summarised as follows:

The Commission stated that there were no specific internal procedures designed to seek friendly solutions to issues such as the one raised by the complainant. Given that Young Experts were not covered by the Staff Regulations, they could not, for example, use the procedure set out in Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations.

However, given that they had signed a contract governed by contract law, Young Experts could obtain, from the service in the Commission which managed the contract, a reasoned opinion with respect to the interpretation of a particular clause of the contract. In the event that this service did not accede to a request from a Young Expert, he/she could make an appeal to the competent judicial authority, as set out in Article 48 of the General Terms and Conditions.

The complainant's observations

In his further observations, the complainant repeated his allegation that he had been discriminated against, given that he was the only expatriated member of staff in the Delegation who did not receive the increase in the living allowance effective from 1 January 2006. In order to illustrate the situation he had experienced, the complainant also made reference to the worsening security situation in Trinidad and Tobago at the relevant period in time.

THE DECISION

1 The complainant’s first allegation that he was discriminated against

1.1 The complainant worked as a Young Expert in the Commission's Delegation in Trinidad and Tobago ("the Delegation"). His contract was concluded for a period of one year, from 8 November 2004 until 7 November 2005. The contract was thereafter renewed for a period of one more year, that is, until 7 November 2006.

1.2 Article 10 of Annex X(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (the "Staff Regulations"), which applies to officials and other servants of the Commission assigned to posts outside the EU, states that an allowance for living conditions will be awarded at a rate specified in accordance with their place of employment. The Appointing Authority ("AIPN") must review that allowance each year and, where appropriate, adjust it. On 15 January 2006, the AIPN adopted a decision fixing the allowance rate for Trinidad and Tobago at 15% of his remuneration, which represented an increment of five percentage points compared to the previous year (when the rate had been set at 10%).

1.3 On 2 February 2006, the complainant wrote an e-mail to the Commission's "Help-Desk" for Young Experts, asking whether he would also be entitled to the five percentage-point increase. On 6 February 2006, the Commission replied that, when he renewed his contract on 8 November 2005, the living allowance for Trinidad and Tobago was 10%. Therefore, the 10% rate would be maintained for the duration of his second contract. In a further e-mail of 7 February 2006, the Commission explained that Young Experts were not Commission officials and that the differences in their conditions of employment were completely lawful, provided that the terms of their contract were respected. The Commission pointed out that the General Terms and Conditions applicable to the Young Experts clearly set out that any increase or decrease in the rate of the living allowance would apply on the anniversary of the signing of the contract.

1.4 The complainant alleged that he was discriminated against, given that he was not granted, as from 1 January 2006, the five percentage-point increase in the allowance for living conditions set out in the decision of the AIPN of 15 January 2005 for staff assigned to the Delegation. He claimed that he should be entitled to the increase in question.

1.5 The complainant stated that, as he was not an official, he was not subject to Article 90 of the Staff Regulations. Therefore, in order to seek redress, he contacted the Commission's Help-Desk for Experts. In his letter to the Commission, the Ombudsman thus asked the latter to comment expressly on any internal procedures through which the complainant could have sought an amicable solution to the dispute.

1.6 In its opinion to the Ombudsman, the Commission stated that the employment of Young Experts by a delegation is governed by contract law, namely, by the "General Terms and Conditions Governing Fixed-Term Contracts for Young Experts Assigned to a Delegation", and any specific provisions which may be agreed with a Young Expert. Article 28.3 of the General Terms and Conditions, which refers to "[a]llowance for difficult living conditions" states that " [a]ny increase or decrease in the rate of the allowance for difficult living conditions in the country of employment of the Expert shall apply automatically on the anniversary of the Contract."

The complainant signed a first contract on 8 November 2004 for a period of one year. That contract was renewed on 8 November 2005 for one more year. On 8 November 2005, the cost of living allowance for officials and other agents, which applied, by analogy, to Young Experts, was 10%. In accordance with Article 28.3 of the General Terms and Conditions, that rate was applied to the complainant for the duration of his renewed contract (that is, from 8 November 2005 until 7 November 2006). The complainant was thus treated in the same manner as all other Young Experts assigned to a delegation. The Commission thus maintained that the allegation that the Commission had treated the complainant in a discriminatory manner was unfounded.

1.7 In his observations, the complainant stated that, while the decision of the Commission to increase the living allowance had not yet been published when his contract was renewed in November 2005, the increase in the living allowance had already been decided upon. Thus, despite the fact that he was aware that the cost of living allowance was going to be increased in the coming months, he was obliged to renew his contract at the lower rate.

The complainant further stated that his complaint did not concern the clauses of the contract per se, but rather the legality and fairness of the clauses. He stated that Young Experts were, like officials, expatriated. He noted that the Commission discriminated against one type of employee, that is, Young Experts, by not affording them the opportunity to review the contract during its term in order to adapt it to the actual conditions applicable in the country of destination. The complainant noted that he did not allege that he was treated differently from other Young Experts but rather that he was treated differently from other personnel in the Delegation. The complainant noted that two of this colleagues who had signed "contractual agent" contracts when he had signed his own contract, were granted increases at the same time that officials working at the Delegation were granted increases.

1.8 Referring to Article 28.3 of the General Terms and Conditions, the complainant argued that "the allowance for difficult living conditions shall apply by analogy to Experts." He stated that, while this analogy was expressly set out in the General Terms and Conditions, it was not applied in practice.

1.9 The complainant noted that the cost of living allowance was increased to 20% two months after the allowance had been increased to 15%. The complainant stated that this implied that he should have obtained an increase in his salary of five percentage points for the first two months of 2006, and an increase of ten percentage points for the remaining months of his contract, that is, until 7 November 2006.

1.10 The Ombudsman notes that the Commission limited itself to arguing that it complied with the contract signed with the complainant. After carefully examining the contract, the Ombudsman notes that Article 28.3 of the General Terms and Conditions states that:

"The list of places of employment and the allowance for difficult living conditions published annually by the Commission in accordance with the Regulations and Rules applicable to officials and other servants of the European Communities shall apply by analogy to Experts. The rate of the allowance shall depend on the level fixed for the country of employment in the grading system.

Countries shall be graded by the Commission in the light of objective criteria and in a uniform manner in relation to all Experts.

The percentage laid down in respect of a given country of employment shall apply to all places of employment in the country save where a different percentage is expressly stipulated for the capital and for any other places of employment.

Any increase or decrease in the rate of the allowance for difficult living conditions in the country of employment of the Expert shall apply automatically on the anniversary of the Contract."

Thus, while it is clear, from the General Terms and Conditions, that the level of the allowance for difficult living conditions will be set taking into account the allowance applicable to officials and other servants which is published annually by the Commission, the same Terms and Conditions also state that "any increase or decrease in the rate of the allowance for difficult living conditions in the country of employment of the Expert shall apply automatically on the anniversary of the Contract" (emphasis added). Thus, it is correct to argue that the Commission had no contractual obligation to increase the allowance granted to the complainant from 1 January 2006. It therefore cannot be sustained that the Commission committed a breach of contract as regards the complainant.

1.11 The Ombudsman, however, notes that the principle of non-discrimination is one of the fundamental principles of Community law. Principles of good administration require that the Commission, when it drafts contracts, for example standard contracts for the purpose of employing Young Experts, should not breach the principle of non-discrimination. Thus, the Ombudsman will examine whether the system of calculating the allowance for living conditions, as set out in the General Terms and Conditions, breaches the principle of non-discrimination.

1.12 As consistently held by the Community Courts, the principle of non-discrimination requires that comparable situations should not be treated in a different manner and different situations should not be treated alike unless such treatment is objectively justified. Indeed, as regards the differences between various categories of persons in the service of the Communities, the Community Courts have consistently found that:

"it is not possible to question the differences in status between the various categories of persons employed by the Communities, whether as officials properly so called or in the various categories of staff covered by the conditions of employment of other servants. (…) [E]ach of those categories is defined in accordance with the legitimate requirements of the community administration and the nature of the permanent or temporary tasks which it has to perform. The fact that some categories of persons employed by the Communities may enjoy guarantees under the Staff Regulations (…) which are not given to other categories cannot, therefore, be regarded as discrimination."(2)

1.13 The complainant was employed as a Young Expert by the Commission. The General Terms and Conditions describe a Young Expert as a person "participating in the training programme organised by the European Commission assigned to one of its Delegations in a non-member country" (emphasis added). Young Experts are clearly not in an equivalent situation to persons subject to the Staff Regulations (that is, officials) or even the Conditions of employment of other servants (such as, temporary agents, auxiliary agents or contract agents). Thus, any difference in treatment between Young Experts on the one hand, and officials and other servants on the other hand, could not constitute grounds for a finding of discrimination.

1.14 The Ombudsman notes that it is not disputed that that the complainant was treated in a manner identical to that in which other Young Experts were treated.

1.15 In light of the above, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the allegation that the Commission discriminated against the complainant.

1.16 The Ombudsman notes that the complainant, in his observations, also questioned the "legality" and "fairness" of the rules applicable to Young Experts. While these allegations were not made by the complainant in his complaint, the Ombudsman considers it opportune to comment on them.

1.17 As regards the "legality" of the clauses, the Ombudsman notes the contractual nature of the relationship between the complainant and the Commission. The General Terms and Conditions, the Ombudsman state, in relation to living allowances, that "[a]ny increase or decrease in the rate of the allowance for difficult living conditions in the country of employment of the Expert shall apply automatically on the anniversary of the Contract" (emphasis added). Therefore, from the perspective of contract law, the position taken by the Commission is clearly correct.

1.18 The Ombudsman notes that principles of good administration extend further than the concept of "legality". Principles of good administration also require that the Community institutions and bodies act fairly(3).

The Ombudsman first of all considers it necessary to underline that the Commission enjoys a broad margin of discretion as regards how best to structure programmes for the employment of Young Experts, including how best to structure a remuneration/allowance package offered to Young Experts. In this context, the Commission may choose between numerous alternative "fair" systems.

The Ombudsman notes that, under the current system applicable to Young Experts, the cost of living calculation applied to each Young Expert will necessarily be less up-to-date than the cost of living calculation applied to officials and other servants (given that the rate applied to Young Experts signing a contract in any given calendar year will be based on the rate established for officials and other servants at the commencement of that calendar year). The allowance rate applied to Young Experts is thus, potentially, but not necessarily, a less accurate reflection of the current cost of living. The Ombudsman is also of the view that the application to Young Experts of a system which would be analogous to the system applicable to officials and other servants is technically feasible.

The Ombudsman also notes that, under the current system applicable to Young Experts, if the allowance rate applicable to officials and other servants were to be increased in the course of the annual review of such allowances, a Young Expert would remain on the lower allowance rate until the anniversary of his/her contract. However, if the rate applicable to officials and other servants were to be reduced in the course of the annual review of such allowances, the Young Expert would remain, until the anniversary of his/her contract, on a higher allowance rate than the rate applicable to officials and other servants. As such, the system chosen by the Commission to calculate cost of living allowances for Young Experts will not, in all circumstances, disadvantage Young Experts.

Further, the Commission may have, for Young Experts, taken into consideration the importance of certainty as regards remuneration/allowances. The Commission may have thus taken the view, in these circumstances, that it was in the interests of Young Experts to be guaranteed, at the commencement of a contract, the remuneration/allowances to be received throughout the term of the contract. The Ombudsman is also cognisant of the fact that Young Experts are on relatively short-term contracts.

In light of the above, the current system chosen by the Commission to calculate the cost of living allowances for Young Experts is not necessarily "unfair".

Nevertheless the Ombudsman considers that it would be good administrative practice for the Commission to review, on a periodic basis, whether the system for calculating cost of living allowances applicable to Young Experts continues to be the most appropriate one. As a result the Ombudsman will make a further remark below.

2 The complainant’s claim

2.1 The Ombudsman understood the complainant to claim, in summary, that the Commission should pay him an amount corresponding to the increase of five percentage points in the allowance for living conditions from 1 January 2006 until the expiry of his contract in November 2006.

2.2 In light of the conclusion set out in Section 1 above, the complainant's claim must be rejected.

2.3 The Ombudsman also notes that, in his observations on the Commission's opinion, the complainant stated that, two months after the allowance had been increased to 15%, the "cost of living allowance" was increased to 20%. The complainant stated that this implied that he should have obtained an increase in his salary of five percentage points for the first two months of 2006, and an increase of ten percentage points for the remaining months of his contract, that is, until 7 November 2006.

2.4 The Ombudsman notes that this additional claim was not set out in the complaint to the Ombudsman. The Commission has not therefore had the opportunity to comment on this additional claim. Therefore, the Ombudsman has not examined this additional claim in the context of the present inquiry. In any event, the complainant has not provided evidence that he made prior administrative approaches to the Commission in relation to this claim(4).

3 Internal procedures through which the complainant could have sought an amicable solution to his dispute with the Commission

3.1 In his letter opening the inquiry, the Ombudsman specifically asked the Commission to include, in its opinion, an explanation as to any internal procedures through which the complainant could have sought an amicable resolution to his dispute with the Commission. In its reply of 28 September 2006, the Commission did not provide any information as regards this issue. The Ombudsman therefore, in his further inquiries, asked whether the Commission could provide him with information on the existence of any internal procedures through which the complainant could have sought an amicable resolution to his dispute with the Commission.

3.2 In its reply to the Ombudsman’s further inquires, the Commission stated that there were no specific internal procedures designed to seek friendly solutions to issues such as the one raised by the complainant. However, the Commission’s service which manages the contract may provide a reasoned opinion with respect to the interpretation of a particular clause in the contract. In the event that the relevant service does not agree with a request from the Young Expert, he/she can make an appeal to the competent judicial authority, as set out in Article 48 of the General Terms and Conditions.

3.3 The Ombudsman observes that Article 90 of the Staff Regulations states that any person to whom the Staff Regulations apply may request that the AIPN take a decision relating to him. It also states that any person to whom the Staff Regulations apply may submit to the AIPN a complaint against an act adversely affecting him/her. However, the procedure under Article 90 is not applicable to other categories of employee, such as Young Experts.

3.4 The Ombudsman has, in the context of an own-initiative inquiry(5), noted that an effective internal dispute resolution procedure enables a public body to resolve a high proportion of problems itself, either by taking remedial action if necessary, or by explaining its position to the person bringing the complaint. As a result of the Ombudsman's own-initiative inquiry, the Commission stated that it was preparing a suitable provision for the resolution of potential disputes involving seconded national experts. In that inquiry, the Ombudsman noted that, considering Article 2(4) and 2(8) of the Statute of the Ombudsman, such a provision should also prevent complaints from reaching the Ombudsman before all possibilities for solving the problem by internal administrative means have been exhausted.

3.5 The Ombudsman considers that an effective internal dispute resolution procedure applicable to certain categories of employee, such as Young Experts, would be highly beneficial, both to the Commission and to Young Experts. In the Ombudsman's view, such an internal dispute resolution procedure should be separate from the service within the Commission which manages the contract. The Ombudsman considers that such an internal dispute resolution procedure could be particularly useful in relation to disputes resulting from significant increases in the cost of living which may apply to Young Experts after they have signed contracts with the Commission and which, therefore, could not have been taken into consideration by the Young Experts when agreeing to the terms of a contract. The Ombudsman considers it useful to make a further remark in this regard.

4 Conclusion

In light of the above, the Ombudsman does not find any instance of maladministration in the present case.

As regards the system of cost of living allowances applicable to Young Experts, it is useful to make the following further remark:

It would be good administrative practice for the Commission to review, on a periodic basis, whether the system for calculating cost of living allowances applicable to Young Experts continues to be the most appropriate system.

As regards the internal procedures through which the complainant could have sought an amicable resolution to his dispute with the Commission, it is useful to make the following further remark:

The Ombudsman considers that an effective internal dispute resolution procedure applicable to certain categories of employee, such as Young Experts, would be highly beneficial, both to the Commission and to Young Experts.

In light of the conclusions set out above, the Ombudsman decides to close the case.

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

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) Article 10 of Annex X (Special and exceptional provisions applicable to officials serving in a third country) of the Staff Regulations states that:

"(…) The parameters taken into account for fixing the allowance for living conditions shall be the following:

• health and hospital environment,
• security,
• climate,

to which three parameters shall be applied a weighting of 1:

• degree of isolation,
• other local conditions,

to which two parameters shall be applied a weighting of 0.5.

Each parameter shall have the following value:

(…)

The allowance shall be fixed as a percentage of the reference amount referred to in the first subparagraph, in accordance with the following scale:

(…)

The allowance for living conditions fixed for each place of employment shall be reviewed and, where appropriate, adjusted each year by the appointing authority after the opinion of the Staff Committee has been obtained.(...)".

(2) Joined Cases 118 to 123/82 Celant and others v Commission [1983] ECR 2995, at paragraph 22; see also, Case 171/84 Soma and others v Commission [1986] ECR 173, at paragraph 30; and Case F-59/05 De Smedt v Commission, judgment of 19 October 2006, not yet reported, at paragraph 76.

(3) See Article 11 of The European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.

(4) See Article 2.4 of the Statute of the European Ombudsman, which states that "A complaint (…) must be preceded by the appropriate administrative approaches to the institutions and bodies concerned."

(5) See Decision of the European Ombudsman in OI/1/2003/ELB, which is available on the Ombudsman's website (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/decision/en/03oi1.htm).