Dear X,
On 15 August 1998, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman alleging maladministration in a laboratory of the Joint Research Center of Ispra.
On 3 November 1998, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The European Commission sent its opinion on 1 February 1999, and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. You did not submit any observations on the Commission's opinion.
I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the relevant facts were as follows:
The complainant was a trainee in a laboratory of the Joint Research Center (JRC) of Ispra for the period from December 1997 to October 1998. The complainant's post doctoral training grant was awarded in the framework of a project funded by the Commission. The grant was however paid by an Italian company, which received the funding from the European Commission in the framework of the project. The complainant signed a contract with the company on 12 December 1997.
During the traineeship the complainant wrote three reports on a certain project and two reports on another project. However, faced with various technical difficulties and a discordant atmosphere within the laboratory, in particular with the director of the laboratory who was the complainant's superior, the complainant left the laboratory, under pressure from the director, in July 1998.
In two letters addressed to DG XII and to the Head of Unit of the JRC, the complainant explained the problems encountered. The complainant pointed out that there were no characterization tools available in the laboratory to carry out the work, that there was no team work, and that the atmosphere in the laboratory got worse after March 1998, when the complainant had taken leave forgetting to fill in the application for leave. The complainant also observed that, according to the director of the laboratory, the complainant had personal problems with different colleagues. Therefore the director started to put pressure on the complainant to leave the laboratory. The complainant made several requests by fax to order the appropriate material for the experiments, but these received no follow-up.
The complainant therefore wrote to the Ombudsman on 15 August 1998. The complainant's allegations against the JRC of Ispra can be summarized as follows. Firstly, the complainant complained that the laboratory did not furnish the technical materials (characterization tools) necessary to accomplish the research activities. Secondly, the complainant alleged abuse of power by the superior who put pressure on the complainant in order to make the complainant leave the JRC and not to communicate to the Commission the bad functioning of the laboratory. Finally, the complainant observed that the complainant's research on the first project was not published, and that the complainant's name was not quoted in the publications established with the complainant's scientific collaboration with regard to the second project.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion
In its opinion, the Commission first clarified the status of the complainant. The complainant was accepted as a trainee in the laboratory in Ispra, to develop a certain project in collaboration with the Italian company. The company is linked by a post doctorate scholarship contract with DG XII of the Commission. The complainant signed two contracts, namely a scholarship contract with the company, which had to pay the complainant, and a contract of "non-paid trainee" with the JRC, in order to carry out the work in the laboratory.
As regards the first allegation concerning the lack of characterization tools in the laboratory, the Commission referred to the contract it had with the trainee. The only obligation of the JRC was to give the complainant access to the laboratory with the tools available in that laboratory. The obligation to provide the trainee with the appropriate equipment for carrying out the research work lay with the company. The complainant addressed requests for instruments directly to the company during the first six months of the complainant's training. The Commission furthermore observed that the complainant wrote five reports about characterization, which was a significant indication that the complainant had the necessary instruments for the research.
As regards the second allegation concerning the alleged pressure on the complainant by the superior, the Commission based its reply on a note sent on 26 June 1998 by the superior to the trainee. The notice referred to the difficult relationship between the complainant and the rest of the staff, to the complainant's critical attitude and to several absences without prior agreement and without justification. In this note the superior had demanded that the complainant radically change behaviour with regard to these points. He concluded that, otherwise, he would have to reconsider the modalities of the complainant's participation in the project.
On the last allegation concerning the fact that the complainant's researches have not been published, the Commission referred to the contract with the trainee, which contained no obligation for the JRC to publish the research. Regarding the fact that the name of the complainant was not quoted in the publications based on the complainant's research activities, the Commission referred to the scientific practice that only the researchers at the origin of the work are quoted.
The Commission concluded that it was not responsible for any maladministration in this case and that the complainant's allegations were not grounded.

THE DECISION

1. The alleged failure to provide the trainee with the appropriate tools
1.1 The complainant alleged that the laboratory did not make available the technical materials (characterization tools) necessary to accomplish the research activities on the project. The Commission observed that the obligation to provide the trainee with the appropriate equipment lay with the Italian company.
1.2 The Ombudsman notes that the obligation to provide the trainee with the appropriate equipment indeed lay with the company and not with the JRC. According to Article 2.3.d of the contract between the company and the complainant, the company had the obligation to "put at the trainee-researcher's disposal, the infrastructure, the equipment and the products necessary for the realization of the project". The Commission can thus not be held responsible for the alleged lack of materials. Therefore, no maladministration was found with regard to this aspect of the case.
2. The alleged pressure on the complainant by the superior
2.1 The complainant alleged that the superior put pressure in order to make the complainant leave the JRC of Ispra, and to prevent the complainant from communicating to the Commission the bad functioning of his laboratory. The Commission referred to the note of the complainant's superior of 26 June 1998 which described the difficult relationship between the complainant and the rest of the staff, the complainant's critical attitude and several absences without prior agreement or justification.
2.2 It appears from the note of 26 June 1998 that the complainant was asked to radically change attitude with regard to the different points raised in it, otherwise the superior would have to reconsider the modalities of the complainant's participation in the project. The complainant did not provide evidence to sustain the allegation or to contradict the points raised in the note of 26 June. Therefore the Ombudsman considers that this allegation is not grounded.
3. The alleged lack of publication of the complainant's research
3.1 As regards the complainant's allegation that the complainant's research work had not been published, the Ombudsman notes that the trainee-contract the JRC signed with the complainant contained no obligation whatsoever for the JRC to publish the complainant's research work.
3.2 As regards the complainant's allegation that the complainant's name was not mentioned in the publications based on the research activities, the Ombudsman notes that the JRC acted in accordance with the normal scientific practice, where only the researchers at the origin of the work are quoted. For those reasons, no maladministration was found with regard to this aspect of the case.
4. Conclusion
On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Commission. The Ombudsman has therefore closed the case.
The President of the European Commission will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely,
Jacob SÖDERMAN