Decision of the European Ombudsman on complaint 568/2006/MF against the European Commission

Strasbourg, 26 July 2007

Dear Mr C.,

On 24 February 2006, you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission’s Traineeships Office concerning your application for a traineeship.

On the occasion of a telephone conversation on 7 March 2006, my services requested that you send the documents showing that you had made the prior administrative approaches with the Commission. On the same day, you sent me the relevant documents.

On 24 March 2006, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission.

On 5 April 2006, you sent me an e-mail related to your complaint in which you informed me that you wished to amend the claim you had submitted.

On 12 May 2006, I informed the President of the Commission of the amendment of your claim. You were informed accordingly by letter of the same day.

The Commission sent its opinion on 30 May 2006.

On 2 June 2006, I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations before 31 July 2006. No observations were received from you by that date.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The original complaint

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

In September 2005, the complainant applied for a traineeship at the European Commission for the period beginning in March 2006.

In October 2005, the complainant started a traineeship at Eurocontrol. This traineeship was foreseen to end in February 2006 in order to allow the complainant to start his traineeship at the Commission in March 2006.

According to the complainant, candidates had been clearly informed that the persons who had been shortlisted for a traineeship would be informed accordingly before mid-January 2006 and would receive an offer of contract.

At the end of January 2006, in view of the absence of information from the Commission, the complainant concluded that he had not been shortlisted for a traineeship. He subsequently requested and obtained an extension of his traineeship at Eurocontrol until October 2006.

However, on 22 February 2006, that is, more than one month after the relevant deadline, the Commission telephoned the complainant in order to invite him to sign a contract for a traineeship. According to the complainant, the Commission official who invited him to sign his contract was also very surprised that he had not been given any information beforehand.

The complainant contacted the Commission by e-mail on 24 February 2006. In this e-mail, the complainant pointed out that the Commission had failed to inform him in due time that he had been shortlisted for a traineeship beginning in March 2006. The complainant requested that the Commission postpone his selection for a traineeship to the period beginning in October 2006.

On the same day, the Commission replied to the complainant that it had taken note of the withdrawal of his application for the traineeship beginning in March 2006 and that it was impossible for it to postpone the complainant's selection for a traineeship for the period beginning in October 2006.

In his complaint to the European Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to inform him in due time that he had been shortlisted for a traineeship beginning in March 2006. He claimed that the Commission should postpone his selection for a traineeship to the period beginning in October 2006.

The complainant’s further e-mail of 5 April 2006

On 5 April 2006, the complainant informed the Ombudsman that he wished to amend his claim as follows:

"The complainant claims that the Commission should allow him to start a traineeship in October 2006. In case the Ombudsman should be unable to complete his inquiry before 1 October 2006, he claims that he should be allowed to start his traineeship in March 2007."

On 12 May 2006, the Ombudsman informed the Commission of the new formulation of the complainant’s claim. The complainant was informed accordingly by letter of the same day.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

The Commission’s opinion on the complaint was, in summary, as follows:

According to the information provided on the website of the Commission’s Traineeships Office , the outcome of the selection procedure for the session beginning in March 2006 consisted in sending an offer of contract before mid-January 2006.

However, the relevant page on the website of the Commission’s Traineeships Office further set out the following two points:

"a) Late selection:

If offers are declined or withdrawn, the DGs and services can make late selections. Late-selected candidates are contacted either by phone or by email to check their availability. Please do not contact the Traineeships Office or the DGs regarding late selection. If you are selected, we will contact you.

Selection continues until all available places are filled or the deadline has been reached.

b) Recruitment deadlines:

The recruitment deadline for the session of March is on 15 April."

This date of recruitment of 15 April was later than the "normal" date for beginning the session because the selection continued until (i) all the places were allocated or (ii) the expiration of the deadline for the selection of candidates for a minimum traineeship period of three months. Under this second possibility, a traineeship period would begin on 1 May and finish at the end of July of the relevant period. Furthermore, the traineeships to begin on 1 May would be preceded by a 15-day period during which the Commission would select the applicants. In the Commission’s view, the complainant appeared to have read only the first part of the information set out on the page concerning the notice concerning the results of the selection.

In light of the above, the Commission considered that it had contacted the complainant in due time, that is, on 22 February 2006, in order to propose to him a late offer.

As regards the complainant’s claim, the Commission stated that the second paragraph of Point 4 of the Commission's Decision of 2 March 2005 laying down rules for traineeships(1) clearly specified that only one contract for a given traineeship period could be given to candidates. Thus, candidates who refused an offer of contract were excluded from the ongoing procedure. They had the possibility to re-apply for a later training period session, provided that they submitted a new request, accompanied by all the supporting documents.

Each session had its own collection of applications, and, in order to guarantee an equal treatment of the files, only the files forming part of the same selection procedure were taken into account.

The Commission concluded that it had not committed any error by informing the complainant of his late recruitment on 22 February 2006, and that the information provided on the website in this regards was sufficiently clear. The Commission could not derogate from its rules by postponing its selection for a later period.

The complainant's observations

No observations were received from the complainant by the date set for this purpose.

THE DECISION

1 The Commission’s alleged failure to inform the complainant in due time that he had been shortlisted for a traineeship beginning in March 2006

1.1 In September 2005, the complainant applied for a traineeship at the European Commission for the period beginning in March 2006. According to the complainant, candidates had been clearly informed that the persons who had been shortlisted for a traineeship would be informed accordingly before mid-January 2006. In October 2005, the complainant started a traineeship at Eurocontrol that was envisaged to last until the end of February 2006. At the end of January 2006, in view of the absence of information from the Commission, the complainant concluded that he had not been shortlisted for a traineeship. He subsequently requested and obtained an extension of his traineeship at Eurocontrol until October 2006. However, on 22 February 2006, the Commission telephoned the complainant in order to invite him to sign a contract for a traineeship. According to the complainant, the Commission official who invited him to sign his contract was very surprised that he had not been given any information beforehand. The complainant alleged that the Commission had failed to inform him in due time that he had been shortlisted for a traineeship beginning in March 2006.

1.2 In its opinion, the Commission acknowledged that, according to the information provided on the website of its Traineeships Office, the outcome of the selection procedure for the session beginning in March 2006 consisted of the sending of an offer of contract before mid-January 2006. However, the relevant page on the website of the Commission’s Traineeships Office further stated that its Directorates-General and services could make late selections when offers were declined or withdrawn. In this case, the candidates selected late would be contacted either by telephone or by e-mail to check their availability and the selection would continue until all available places were filled or the relevant deadline had been reached. In case of late selections, the recruitment deadline for the session of March was 15 April of the relevant year. The Commission submitted that it had contacted the complainant in due time, that is, on 22 February 2006, when it made him a late offer. The Commission concluded that it had not committed any error by informing the complainant of his late recruitment on 22 February 2006, and that the information provided on the website was sufficiently clear.

1.3 No observations were received from the complainant by the date set for this purpose.

1.4 The Ombudsman notes that, according to the rules governing the traineeships at the Commission, there are two training periods per year, namely (i) from 1 March to the end of July and (ii) from 1 October to the end of February of the following year. According to the information available on the website of the Commission’s Traineeships Office, the shortlisted candidates for the period beginning in March are to be informed of the results of the selection by mid-January of the relevant year. The Ombudsman further notes that, in case offers are declined or withdrawn, there is a possibility for the late selection of further candidates. The selected candidates are contacted by the Traineeships Office and the selection continues until all available places are filled or the deadline (15 April for the March session) has been reached.

1.5 The Ombudsman notes that, on the occasion of a telephone conversation on 22 February 2006, the Commission’s Traineeships Office invited the complainant to sign a contract for a traineeship. In light of the above, it would therefore appear that the Commission tried to use the possibility of late selection and informed the complainant in due time, that is, before 15 April 2006, that he had been selected for a traineeship.

1.6 The Ombudsman notes that, in his complaint, the complainant stated that, on the occasion of the telephone conversation of 22 February 2006, the Commission official who spoke to him was very surprised that he had not been given any information beforehand. This fact could call into question the Commission's account of events, given that in the case of a late selection, the candidate would obviously not have been contacted by the Commission previously. However, the Ombudsman notes that the complainant has not provided any further information in this context. It thus cannot be excluded that any surprise the relevant official might have expressed was due to the fact that the complainant had not been informed of the possibility of a late selection. It should further be noted that the complainant has not submitted any observations on the Commission's reply. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that he has no reason to doubt the Commission's explanation that it proceeded to a late selection in the present case.

1.7 In view of the above, the Ombudsman considers that there appears to have been no maladministration by the Commission as regards the complainant’s allegation.

2 The complainant's claim

2.1 The complainant claimed that the Commission should have postponed his selection for a traineeship to the period beginning in October 2006. By e-mail of 5 April 2006, the complainant claimed that the Commission should allow him to start a traineeship in October 2006. In case the Ombudsman were unable to complete his inquiry before 1 October 2006, he claimed that he should be allowed to start his traineeship in March 2007.

2.2 The Commission stated that the second paragraph of Point 4 of the Commission's Decision of 2 March 2005 laying down rules for traineeships(2) clearly specified that only one contract for a given traineeship period could be given to candidates. Thus, candidates who refused an offer of contract were excluded from the ongoing procedure. They had the possibility to re-apply for a later training period session, provided that they submitted a new request, accompanied by all the supporting documents. Each session had its own collection of applications, and, in order to guarantee an equal treatment of the files, only the files forming part of the same selection procedure were taken into account. The Commission pointed out that it could not derogate from its rules by postponing its selection for a later period.

2.3 The Ombudsman notes that, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 4 ("Recruitment procedure") of the Commission's Decision of 2 March 2005 laying down rules for traineeships,

"[A]pplicants can only be offered a single contract for a given training period. Applicants who decline a contract offer will be excluded to the on-going procedure. They may re-apply for a subsequent training period by submitting a fresh application, together with all the supporting documents" (emphasis added by the Commission).

2.4 In light of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the position adopted by the Commission appears to be reasonable. The Ombudsman therefore considers that the complainant has not established his claim.

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) The Decision is available on the Commission's website (http://ec.europa.eu/stages/rules/rules_en.htm).

(2) The Decision is available on the Commission's website (http://ec.europa.eu/stages/rules/rules_en.htm).