Dear Ms H.,
On 15 February 1999, you made a complaint concerning alleged maladministration in the European Commission's traineeship scheme. On 9 March, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 15 June 1999. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 18 August 1999.
I am writing now to let you know the result of the inquiries that have been made.
I apologise for the length of time that it has taken to finish this inquiry.

THE COMPLAINT

In February 1999, the complainant submitted the following allegations about the Commission's traineeship system:
First, the Commission unreasonably exploits its trainees because it pays them low grants or no grants at all. Trainees will some times carry out tasks that are similar to those carried out by Commission officials. Such trainees should therefore be paid a salary similar to that of such officials.
Second, the traineeship scheme discriminates towards non-Danish traineeship-applicants. The complainant put forward that Danish applicants are allowed to apply during their university studies, whereas applicants from other Member States appear to be required to have completed their university studies. She referred to the fact that Danish applicants are no longer required to have completed the Danish Kandidateksamen. The complainant had expressed her view to the Commission's Secretariat General, who on 23 November 1998 replied that:

"...it is correct that the Commission has decided to change the application-requirements ... for Danish applicants due to the fact that the number of Danish applicants fell dramatically throughout a number of years. This was partly due to the fact that the Kandidateksamen in Denmark are relatively long, namely five years. ... [I]t is now only required that Danish applicants have obtained their bachelor degree and are registered for the courses leading to [the Kandidateksamen]. This is not discrimination but an attempt to create equality. For instance, today it is the case that British, Irish and German applicants are only required to have finished a three-year study, i.e. the bachelor degree, and applicants from most other Member States only a four-year degree. This shows that the requirements to Danish applicants have previously been more strict."

Third, the Commission wrongfully recruits traineeship-applicants who have contacted its officials directly to further their applications. This is wrong procedure, which leads to nepotism in the recruitment of trainees.
Thus, the complainant alleged that there is exploitation, discrimination and nepotism in the Commission's traineeship system.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion
The Commission's opinion contained, in summary, the following response.
In respect of the first allegation concerning exploitation, the Commission explained that its traineeship system is a training scheme. Trainees do not take the place of Commission officials. The Commission referred to its Rules governing in-service training, which provide that the aims of in-service training are:
- to give trainees a general idea of the objectives and problems of European integration;
- to provide them with practical knowledge of the working of Commission departments;
- to enable them to acquire personal experience by means of the contacts made in the course of their everyday work;
- to enable them to further and put into practice the knowledge they have acquired during their studies or professional careers.
In respect of the second allegation of discrimination, the Commission essentially repeated its reply to the complainant, quoted above (letter of 23 November 1998).
In respect of the third allegation, the Commission stated that it actively discourages candidates from contacting Commission departments before the pre-selection procedure has taken place. The Commission also recognised that once pre-selected, some applicants try to contact Commission officials in order to register their interest in obtaining a place in a particular department.
The complainant's observations
The complainant maintained her allegations.

THE DECISION

1 The allegation of exploitation
1.1 The complainant has alleged that the Commission unreasonably exploits its trainees, by either paying them low grants or no grants at all. She has observed that trainees will some times carry out tasks that are similar to those carried out by Commission officials. Such trainees should therefore be paid a salary similar to that of such officials. The Commission has rejected the allegation of exploitation. While not denying that some trainees carry out tasks that are some times similar to those carried out by officials, the Commission explained that its traineeship system is a training scheme where trainees do not replace officials.
1.2 The Ombudsman considers that it is consistent with normal practices that young trainees obtain work experience without being paid a salary equivalent to that of ordinary Commission officials. The fact that the tasks carried out by the trainees may be useful to the Commission does not imply that the Commission's traineeship scheme is not a training-scheme.
1.3 The Ombudsman therefore concludes that there appears to be no maladministration in the Commission's traineeship scheme in respect of the complainant's first allegation.
2 The allegation of discrimination
2.1 The complainant has alleged that the Commission's traineeship scheme discriminates towards non-Danish traineeship-applicants. She has put forward that Danish applicants are allowed to apply during their university studies, whereas applicants from other Member States appear to be required to have completed their university studies. She has referred to the fact that Danish applicants no longer need to have completed the Danish Kandidateksamen to apply. The Commission has denied the allegation.
2.2 At the present moment there is no agreed harmonised academic equivalence of University degrees in the European Union. Thus, in using university diplomas as a criterion for submission of traineeship applications, the Commission has a broad discretion to take into account the different practices that are applied in different Member States. In doing so, the Commission is obliged to act within its legal authority and to only apply fair, reasonable and justifiable criteria.
2.3 The Ombudsman concludes that the Commission appears to have exercised its discretion within its legal authority, and there is therefore no maladministration in respect of the complainant's second allegation.
3 The allegation concerning direct contacting of officials
3.1 The complainant has put forward that it amounts to nepotism when the Commission recruits applicants who have directly contacted its officials to further their application. The Commission has recognised that once pre-selected for the 'Blue Book', some applicants try to contact Commission officials in order to register their interest in obtaining a place in a particular department.
3.2 The Ombudsman considers that it appears to be consistent with good administration if Commission officials listen to applicants who approach them with a wish to present themselves.
3.3 On the basis of the facts and arguments presented by the complainant, the Ombudsman does not, therefore, find reason to conclude that there is maladministration in respect of the Commission's third allegation.
4 Conclusion
On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to be no maladministration by the Commission. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
The President of the European Commission will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely
Jacob Söderman