Background to the complaint

1. The complainant was an interim worker, recruited via an external contractor of the European Commission, to work in the after-school care of the European Schools. While the European Schools are a distinct  legal entity, separate from the EU institutions, the Commission manages contracts for services provided in relation to the after-school care for the European Schools. The complainant was hired by the contractor on limited duration contracts, renewed weekly, from the beginning of December 2023 until February 2024 at the after-school care site in question.

2. In February 2024, the contractor informed the complainant that, due to her level of French, she could no longer work as an interim worker in the Commission’s after-school care. The complainant engaged in correspondence with the contractor about this.

3. In March 2024, the complainant contacted the Commission. She stated that she had learned that her services were no longer requested, at the request of the parents of a pupil she had taken care of.

4. The contractor replied to the complainant that, it had been in contact with the Commission, which had decided not to request the complainant’s services any longer due to an incident that occurred with the pupil assigned to her and her conduct in the context of a different situation.

5. In correspondence with the complainant, the Commission said that it decided not to request her services any longer from the contractor, based on the reasons provided by the Commission’s unit in charge of the after-school care. It confirmed that it had taken into account the views presented by the complainant in her letters sent after it took the decision not to request her services anymore, as well as her performance as an interim worker since October 2023.[1] Following further letters from the complainant, the Commission informed the complainant that it decided to discontinue exchanges with her due to the repetitive nature of her correspondence.

6. Dissatisfied with how the Commission handled the issue, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in July 2024.

The inquiry

7. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into how the Commission handled the decision not to request the complainant’s services any longer.

8. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman met with representatives of the Commission, and subsequently received the complainant’s comments on the meeting report. The Ombudsman inquiry team also inspected the file and received written clarifications from the Commission. 

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

9. The complainant contended that the Commission did not provide her with adequate reasons to justify its decision not to request her services any longer. She also argued that the Commission did not address all her comments about the decision to no longer request her services.

10. The Commission explained that it replaces absent educational staff with interim workers, such as the complainant, through an external contractor. It argued that it did not have any contractual relationship with the interim worker and that all communication is usually between the contractor and the interim worker. Nevertheless, the Commission recognised that there is an operational relationship between the Commission and the interim worker, where the Commission staff on site gives instructions to the interim workers. Interim workers can discuss pedagogical concerns with the educational psychologist on site, or with the team leaders. Accordingly, any issues are discussed on site and the Commission communicates in writing only with the contractor.  The Commission had communicated to the contractor the reasons why it had decided to no longer request the complainant’s service. While there had been three separate issues, only the complainant’s language skills were the basis for no longer requesting the complainant’s service. In this context, the Commission explained that there were no official written records regarding how the alleged issues with the complainant’s work performance had been dealt with.

The Ombudsman's assessment

11. The Ombudsman’s inquiry focused on how the Commission handled its decision to no longer request the complainant’s services, and how this was presented to the complainant. The inquiry did not assess the basis for the decision, as it is not the role of the Ombudsman to assess the complainant’s work performance.

12. The Ombudsman has consistently taken the view that, where EU institutions request the termination of a person’s contract with an external service provider, they should provide fair and objective reasons to justify the termination, inform the person concerned and ensure they are given the possibility to submit comments before the termination. Even though the institutions may not have a legal obligation to grant such sub-contractors a hearing, the Ombudsman has taken the view that doing so is in line with the principle of fairness. The Ombudsman’s position is equally applicable to situations where the EU institution’s request leads to a non-renewal of a contract for an interim worker. While there may not be a contractual relationship between the Commission and the interim worker, in this case there was an operational relationship, where the interim worker took direct instructions from the Commission staff. This implies a relationship of subordination. In such situations, it is even more reasonable that a decision based on work performance is properly reasoned and communicated. Moreover, the precarious nature of interim workers’ situation implies that the Commission has a duty to be fair and transparent, even in the absence of a contractual relationship.

13. During the inquiry, it emerged that there were no official written records that would support most of the Commission’s claims regarding how the alleged issues with the complainant’s work performance had been dealt with. While the Commission does not have a contractual relationship with interim workers, as a matter of due diligence and good administration, the Ombudsman trusts that, in the future, it keeps some records in cases where there are issues that could potentially lead it to no longer request the services of an interim worker. This is even more so when the performance of an interim worker is assessed by Commission staff and any future service request depends on this assessment. Moreover, the Commission provided three different reasons on three different occasions for its decision not to request the complainant’s services any longer.

14. Against this background, it is regrettable that the Commission did not ensure the complainant was granted a hearing and the opportunity to comment on the reasons given by the Commission before it decided to no longer request the complainant’s services. This hearing could have been ensured through the contractor, with which the complainant had the contractual relationship. However, based on the inspection of the file and the meeting with the Commission, the Ombudsman notes that the complainant must have been aware of some of the work performance issues in the week leading up to the decision. The Commission argues that its staff discussed the issues with the complainant. However, due to the lack of record keeping, the Ombudsman is not in a position to verify this claim. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman welcomes that, in the context of the inquiry, the Commission acknowledged that it could have further explained its reasoning to the complainant. On this basis, no further inquiries are justified.

15. However, the Ombudsman trusts that, in the future, the Commission will address issues arising with interim workers in a timely manner, and, before the decision is taken to no longer request their services, provide them reasons justifying the request and ensure they have the opportunity to provide their views.

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion:

While it is regrettable that the Commission did not engage with the complainant and did not provide her with a complete set of justified reasons before it decided not to request the complainant’s services any longer, the Commission acknowledged that it could have further explained its reasoning to the complainant. Therefore, no further inquiries are justified in this case.

The complainant and the Commission will be informed of this decision.

Teresa Anjinho
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 19/11/2025

 

[1] The complainant had worked at different sites of the after-school care since October 2023.