Dear Mr X.,

On 19 August 2002, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning Europol's alleged refusal to provide you with a letter of reference.

On 30 August 2002, I forwarded the complaint to the Director of Europol. Europol sent its opinion on 18 October 2002. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 21 November 2002.

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

THE COMPLAINT

Background

The complainant, a German national, was recruited by Europol in August 2000 as an administrative assistant. On 4 January 2001, he was informed that Europol had decided to terminate his contract as of 1 February 2001.

On 25 March 2001, the complainant lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman in which he raised eight allegations relating to Europol's behaviour (complaint 468/2001/GG). This complaint was dismissed on 2 April 2001 on the grounds that the complainant had not exhausted all internal remedies (in so far as the first allegation was concerned), that there were no grounds for an inquiry (allegations 2, 6 and 8) and that he did not appear to have made the appropriate administrative approaches (allegations 3, 4, 5 and 7).

On 9 May 2001, the complainant partially renewed his previous complaint and made further allegations (complaint 721/2001/GG). One of the allegations made by the complainant was that Europol had failed to issue a letter of reference to him. In its opinion, Europol pointed out inter alia that the complainant had received a letter of reference on 26 January 2001. The position of the complainant had however deliberately been left out since the complainant had worked in two positions during his probationary period and since Europol had considered that mentioning the positions the complainant had occupied during his short stay with Europol could be misinterpreted by future employers. Europol added, however, that it was willing to provide the complainant with a new letter of reference, mentioning the positions he had worked in.

In his decision on this complaint adopted on 19 November 2001, the Ombudsman noted that the allegations and claims raised by the complainant concerned the obligations arising under a contract concluded between Europol and the complainant. The Ombudsman explained that in cases concerning contractual disputes it was in his view justified to limit his inquiry to examining whether the Community institution or body had provided him with a coherent and reasonable account of the legal basis for its actions and why it believed that its view of the contractual position was justified. If that was the case, the Ombudsman would conclude that his inquiry had not revealed an instance of maladministration. This conclusion would not affect the right of the parties to have their contractual dispute examined and authoritatively settled by a court of competent jurisdiction.

As regarded the case before him, the Ombudsman considered that Europol had put forward a coherent and reasonable account of the reasons on which it had based its approach. The Ombudsman noted in particular that Europol was ready to provide the complainant with a completed letter of reference and that he had no reason to believe that Europol would fail to comply with this undertaking. The Ombudsman therefore closed the case.

The present complaint

In his present complaint, the complainant alleged that Europol had still not provided him with a reference describing his work at Europol. He suggested that Europol should send the letter of reference to the Ombudsman who could forward it to him.

THE INQUIRY

Europol's opinion

In its opinion, Europol admitted that it had not yet provided the complainant with a complete letter of reference. Europol explained that until the receipt of the present complaint, it had been under the impression that the complainant's request had been withdrawn.

Europol submitted a letter of reference for the complainant in English together with a translation into German.

The complainant's observations

In his observations on Europol's opinion, the complainant thanked the Ombudsman for having forwarded Europol's opinion and the letter of reference to him.

The complainant suggested, however, that the Ombudsman should open an own-initiative inquiry regarding Europol's respect of the principles of an orderly and truthful administration. He took the view that Europol had intentionally lied to both himself and the Ombudsman by claiming in several letters that it had issued a letter of reference. The complainant argued that he had suffered damage on account of the fact that he had not received a letter of reference after the end of his employment with Europol. He further alleged that Europol had issued official documents whose contents were not true and according to which he had still been employed by Europol on 1 February 2001. The complainant further argued that Europol had alleged, contrary to what was true, that it had made regular payments of salary to him after 31 January 2001. In the complainant's view, Europol had also failed to comply with the principle that every citizen had the right to obtain documents in his or her mother tongue and not in a fictitious language. The complainant suggested that the Ombudsman's inquiry should also cover aspects relating to criminal law.

THE DECISION

1 Failure to issue letter of reference

1.1 The complainant, a former employee of Europol, alleged that Europol had failed to provide him with a letter of reference.

1.2 In its opinion, Europol explained that until the receipt of the present complaint, it had been under the impression that the complainant's request had been withdrawn. Europol also submitted a letter of reference for the complainant in English together with a translation into German.

1.3 In his observations, the complainant thanked the Ombudsman for having forwarded Europol's opinion and the letter of reference to him. The complainant did not make any specific comments concerning the contents of the letter of reference. The Ombudsman notes that the letter of reference provided by Europol lists the duties the complainant had to fulfil during his employment with Europol.

1.4 In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that there is no maladministration on the part of Europol.

2 Further allegations

2.1 In his observations, the complainant made a number of further allegations and suggested that the Ombudsman should open an own-initiative inquiry.

2.2 Given that the complainant has not put forward any evidence to support his allegations, the Ombudsman considers that there are no grounds for him to deal with these allegations in the present inquiry or to open a separate own-initiative inquiry. However, the complainant is free to submit a further complaint to the Ombudsman, after having made the appropriate approaches to Europol, in so far as these allegations are concerned.

3 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to be no maladministration on the part of Europol. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The Director of Europol will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN