# Decision in case 1392/2018/EIS on the lack of proper response by the EEAS to the complainant about the non-extension of her traineeship in an EU Delegation
- Author: European Ombudsman
- Date: 2018-12-10T00:00+01:00[Europe/Paris]
- [URL](https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/107486)
---
> The case concerned the lack of proper response by the European External Action Service (EEAS) to the complainant concerning the failure to extend her traineeship in an EU Delegation under the Junior Professionals in Delegation (JPD) programme.
>
> The Ombudsman inquired into the issue and found the EEAS' position to be reasonable.
>
> The Ombudsman thus closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.
>
Background to the complaint
---------------------------
**1.**On 11 July 2016, the complainant started her traineeship in an EU Delegation (the 'Delegation') under the 'Junior Professionals in Delegation' ('JPD') Programme. Her traineeship agreement was signed for nine months with the possibility to extend it by another nine months if the Delegation was satisfied with her performance.
**2.**On 20 December 2016, the Delegation prepared a Progress and Evaluation Report, which contained a recommendation not to extend the complainant's traineeship period.
**3.**Between the 14 December 2016 and the 29 March 2017, the complainant met with several of her superiors to discuss her traineeship.
**4.**On 29 March 2017, the Delegation issued the Final Evaluation Report which included the final decision not to extend her traineeship.
**5.**The complainant wrote to the EEAS about the matter but she found that she did not receive a proper response.
**6.**On 1 August 2018, the complainant turned to the European Ombudsman.
The inquiry
-----------
**7.**The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the lack of proper response by the EEAS to the complainant concerning the Delegation's decision not to extend her traineeship and her alleged inappropriate treatment.
**8.**In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman received the reply of the EEAS on the complaint. The complainant did not make any comments on the reply.
Failure to extend the traineeship and alleged inappropriate treatment
---------------------------------------------------------------------
### Arguments presented to the Ombudsman
**9.** **The complainant** argued that, since the beginning of her traineeship, she did not receive sufficient information about her role and her tasks. Her supervisor, who was on holiday for three consecutive weeks when she started, had not left any instructions to his colleagues. Finally, when he arrived, she received '*unclear, random, inconsistent, incomplete, constantly changing and/or erroneous instructions'*, which had a negative impact on the progression of her internship.
**10.**The complainant said that she brought her problems to the attention of the supervisor and asked him several times for a meeting aimed at clarifying the issues. As the supervisor kept postponing the meeting, she reported the issue to the Head of Delegation, who agreed to have a meeting with her and her supervisor. However, she said that it took the Head of Delegation six weeks to arrange the meeting and that, in the meantime, her supervisor had kept her out of all the activities of her section. Besides, she found that the Delegation wrongly refused to fund her evening courses, although there was a budget of EUR 3 000 in the JPD programme for the financing of similar activities for each trainee. Finally, when the meeting with the Head of Delegation took place, the complainant learnt that her traineeship was not going to be extended. In her view, the decision was arbitrary, unfair and suggested that her superior's behaviour was based on racist considerations.
**11.**The complainant said that she had no opportunity to clarify or to improve the situation. She also contacted the JPD desk in the EEAS headquarters in Brussels as well as two staff members in charge of the EU delegations in the region where she did her traineeship. In her view, their attitude was dismissive. She also noted that, after the meeting with the EEAS Director in charge of the region, she did not receive any reply to her e-mails or telephone calls. She alleged that this showed the EEAS' intention to cover up her case.
**12.**The complainant also said that the first progress and evaluation report she received in December 2016 contained misleading allegations. Also the final evaluation report of March 2017 was based on inaccurate information. It wrongly referred to an evaluation of tasks that had not been assigned to her, a negative appraisal of colleagues with whom she had not worked as well as allegations of bad relations with her colleagues, which was not true. The complainant refused to sign this document and addressed each argument in an e-mail to the EEAS headquarters and to the JPD desk in Brussels, to which she did not receive replies.
**13.** **The EEAS** rejected all the complainant's allegations. The complainant had signed the traineeship agreement, which contained a description of her tasks. She had also received a copy of the Joint Decision of the Commission and of the High Representative of the EU[\[1\]](#_ftn1){#_ftnref1}, which contained the general objectives of her training assignment. In this respect, she also received further information in an e-mail, which the Head of Delegation sent to her on 28 September 2016. Regarding the complainant's claim that she did not receive guidance upon arrival, the EEAS noted that the complainant was supposed to start her traineeship at the Delegation on 4 July 2016 but, on 3 July 2016, she informed her supervisor that, due to an administrative delay in her administrative arrangements, she could only start on 11 July 2016. The supervisor informed the complainant that he would be on holidays for three weeks starting from that date but that two colleagues would help her settle in.
**14.**The EEAS further stressed that the complainant had had several informal meetings with her colleagues. Her supervisor tried to respond to all her queries and guide her in the traineeship. On 28 August 2016, the Head of Delegation offered to meet her on the following day, but the complainant was not available on that date.
**15.**As to the evaluation criteria, the EEAS noted that it had given the complainant the opportunity to have a full and fair dialogue on the first progress and evaluation report. However, the complainant's performance was considered weak. In particular, her ability to multitask and to respect deadlines was below expectations, so in the same report, the extension of the traineeship was not recommended. It noted that the Head of Delegation, the supervisor, and the complainant herself signed the progress and evaluation report. The EEAS added that an extension of the traineeship is not an automatic right and that, as there had not been any improvement in the complainant's performance, the final report confirmed the decision not to extend it.
**16.** In accordance with applicable rules, it is up to the supervisor to assess a trainee[\[2\]](#_ftn2){#_ftnref2}. The complainant's supervisor had discussed his opinion in advance with the Head of Delegation who confirmed it. Even if the complainant received information about her right to disagree with the assessment and to introduce her comments on it, she did not avail herself of this possibility; she did not file any formal complaint either, although the applicable rules provide for such an opportunity[\[3\]](#_ftn3){#_ftnref3}. Nevertheless, the Delegation considered her views carefully. There was no evidence supporting the complainant's claim that the hierarchy did not consider her views; the same was true about her allegations of racial discrimination. Finally, as regards the complainant's comments about her evening courses, the EEAS said that the budget mentioned by her was not meant for financing training courses, but to pay for the trainees' training missions.
### The Ombudsman's assessment
**17.**The EEAS has provided a reply (summarised in points 13 to 16 above) which is adequate, reasonable and in line with the applicable provisions. The complainant has not provided any arguments to suggest to the contrary.
**18.**As a result, the case is closed with a finding of no maladministration.
Conclusion
----------
Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion:{#_ftnref4}
**There was no maladministration by the EEAS.**
The complainant and the EEAS will be informed of this decision.
Marta Hirsch-Ziembińska
Head of Inquiries and ICT - Unit 1
Strasbourg, 10/12/2018
[\[1\]](#_ftnref1){#_ftn1} Joint Decision of the Commission and the High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 12 June 2012 establishing a High Level Programme in the Delegation of the EU and the Implementing Rules of 22 January 2014 governing this Programme in partnership with the Member States of the European Union.
[\[2\]](#_ftnref2){#_ftn2} Decision of the Chief Operating Officer of the EEAS in agreement with the Directors-General of DG DEVCO and DG HR of the EC of 22 January 2014 on the Implementing Rules of the High Level Traineeship Programme in the Delegations of the EU in Partnership with the Member States of the EU (EEAS DEC(2014)002), Section 7.
[\[3\]](#_ftnref3){#_ftn3} See Annex 1, point 5.9 of the rules referred to in footnote 1 above.