Dear Mrs V.,

By letter dated 15 May 2002 which was received in my Secretariat on 20 June 2002, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Parliament. The complaint concerned the Parliament's alleged failure to pay your dues for the time you had worked as an auxiliary agent for that institution (2 to 20 May 2001).

On 1 July 2002, I sent your complaint to the President of the European Parliament. The institution sent its opinion on 17 October 2002, and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. You sent your observations on the Parliament's opinion on 13 November 2002.

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

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the facts were as follows:

The complainant had been engaged by the European Parliament as auxiliary agent from 2 April to 2 May 2001. On the basis of the telefax which the Parliament sent her on 13 March 2001, she believed that at the end of April 2001, the contract would be renewed for an additional month (from 2 to 28 May 2001). At the beginning of May 2001, the complainant was informed that her contract could not be extended. The complainant lodged a complaint with the Parliament's appointing authority on the basis of Art. 90 (2) of the Staff Rules. She requested the reimbursement of her salary as auxiliary agent as well as the corresponding allowances for the period from 2 to 28 May 2001.

In his reply to the complainant dated 24 January 2002, the Parliament's Secretary General acknowledged that the wording of the Parliament's communication to her of 13 March 2001 could have led her to believe that the contract would be renewed, and thus it might have created some legitimate expectations on her part. Therefore, Mr Priestley agreed to compensate the complainant.

In her complaint to the Ombudsman of 15 May 2002, the complainant explained that despite the commitment made by the Parliament's Secretary-General and her numerous exchanges with the institution, the amount due had not been paid.

In summary, the complainant claimed that the European Parliament fulfil its undertakings and pay her the money she had been promised.

THE INQUIRY

The Parliament's opinion

Having forwarded the complaint to the Parliament for a formal opinion on 1 July 2002, the Ombudsman received an informal communication from the Parliament's services addressed to his Secretariat which stated that the requested amount had been paid on 26 July 2002.

The Parliament's formal opinion was sent to the Ombudsman on 17 October 2002. The Parliament explained that the delay to complete the payment had been created by the lack of sufficient funds in the appropriate budget line. As a result, the institution had had to request a money transfer from a different budget line and an authorisation for such operation from the EP Budget Committee. Upon the Committee's agreement on 19 June 2002, and the completion of the necessary internal administrative procedures, the amount due (2.748,42 €) was finally forwarded to the complainant on 26 July 2002.

The complainant's observations

In her observations dated 13 November 2002, the complainant expressed her gratitude for the efforts undertaken by the European Ombudsman. She confirmed that the requested payment had been made in July 2002, and pointed out that in achieving a positive outcome, the intervention of the Parliament's Secretariat-General and of Mr Gordon, from its Distribution Service, had been instrumental.

The complainant underlined, however, that the problem had been caused in the first place by the vague terms in which the responsible EP services had drafted the contract. She explained that the Parliament's Pay and Allowances' Division should be blamed for the institution's failure to comply with the undertaking made by its Secretary-General.

THE DECISION

On the basis of the information gathered in the course of his inquiry, the Ombudsman concludes that the case has been settled by the European Parliament to the complainant’s satisfaction.

Against this background, the European Ombudsman decides therefore to close the case.

The President of the European Parliament will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN