The background to the complaint

1. The complainant is a former official of the Commission's Directorate-General External Relations ('DG RELEX'), which is now known as the European External Action Service ('EEAS'). His contract with DG RELEX ended on 31 October 2010.

2. Between the end of October 2010 and the beginning of 2011, the complainant repeatedly contacted DG RELEX by e-mail seeking compensation for a total of over 30 days of unused annual leave.

3. On 12 January 2011, EEAS informed the complainant that, in sum, it was experiencing a number of problems related to the transfer of functions from DG RELEX to EEAS.

4. The complainant replied, emphasising that his contract had ended two months previously and that all the necessary administrative steps ought to have already taken place. He summarised all the correspondence he had exchanged with DG RELEX and EEAS with respect to his unused annual leave and requested that the corresponding payment be made as soon as possible.

5. On 4 February 2011, having received no reply, the complainant again wrote to EEAS emphasising that there was no justification for the delay in paying him compensation for the unused annual leave and that the failure to reply to his concerns was impolite and disrespectful.

6. On 28 February 2011, the complainant, who was still awaiting a response, again addressed EEAS emphasising that he did not receive any reply to his correspondence or payment in lieu of the unused annual leave.

7. On the same day, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman for the first time, complaining about EEAS's failure to pay him the above compensation.

8. On 4, 7 and 17 March 2011, the complainant again repeatedly requested EEAS to "please reply" to his previous e-mails and inform him when he could expect payment.

9. On 28 March 2011, the complainant informed the Ombudsman that he had finally, on that day, received the payment regarding his unused annual leave. Notwithstanding this fact, he wished to maintain his complaint concerning the fact that he did not receive any reply to his e-mails of 12 January and 4 February, or his further e-mails of 4, 7 and 17 March 2011.

The subject matter of the inquiry

10. The complainant alleged that EEAS failed to act courteously towards him.

The inquiry

11. On 19 May 2011, the Ombudsman forwarded the complaint to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy for an opinion.

12. On 6 September 2011, EEAS submitted its opinion, which was forwarded to the complainant for his observations. The Ombudsman received no observations from the complainant.

The Ombudsman's analysis and conclusions

A. Allegation of failure to act courteously

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

13. The complainant solely refers to the way EEAS handled his correspondence relating to compensation for his unused annual leave.

14. In its opinion, and after providing, in sum, reasons for the delays incurred in processing the complainant's compensation for unused annual leave, EEAS acknowledged that it had wrongly failed to respond to the complainant's correspondence. It went on to express its regrets over this failure and to apologise for it.

15. The complainant did not submit any observations on the above.

The Ombudsman's assessment

16. EEAS acknowledged and apologised for the inappropriate handling of the complainant's correspondence in respect of his annual leave. The complainant did not submit any observations in this regard.

17. The Ombudsman is satisfied by EEAS's reply to the present complaint and considers that no further inquiries into the matter are, therefore, justified.

B. Conclusion

On the basis of his inquiry into this complaint, the Ombudsman closes it with the following conclusion:

No further inquiries into the complaint are justified.

The complainant and EEAS will be informed of this decision.

 

P. Nikiforos Diamandouros

Done in Strasbourg on 9 February 2012