Dear Mr M.,
On 25 October 1997 you lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman concerning the alleged failure of the Economic and Social Committee (ESC) to consider your application for a traineeship period.
On 1 December 1997 I forwarded the complaint to the ESC President. On 17 February 1998 this institution sent its comments. Having translated them into Spanish, I forwarded them to you on 23 March 1998 with an invitation to make observations. I have received no observations from you.
I am writing now to let you know the result of the inquiries that have been made.

BACKGROUND

The complaint
The complainant stated in his letter to the Ombudsman that by the end of August 1997 he had sent a complete application for a traineeship period to the ESC. The forms and the conditions of eligibility had been sent to him by the ESC at the beginning of the year. The deadline for applications had been set for the end of September 1997.
On 6 October 1997, at the return from a trip abroad, the complainant received a letter from the ESC explaining that the applications form for ESC traineeships had been modified, and only the new ones were to be considered. A model of the new form had been enclosed with the letter, and should have been completed and sent to the ESC by 30 September 1997.
The complainant claimed that the institution had not made any effort to send the letter by urgent mail. Furthermore he complained on the failure of the ESC to use more flexible means to handle traineeships applications.

THE INQUIRY

The Economic and Social Committee's comments
The ESC's comments on the complaint are in summary the following:
The complainant had contacted the ESC Traineeship Office in November 1996 and February 1997. Following his requests two sets of application forms had been sent to him.
As a result of Decision 323/97 A, the ESC adopted new rules governing ESC traineeships from 1 June 1997. In accordance with those criteria, a new application form was established, with a view to using it for the selection procedure closing at the end of September 1997. In order to ensure a proper transition, each time the ESC received an old application, it returned all documentation to the applicants with a letter enclosing also the new forms. For letters received after 5 September 1997, the ESC extended the deadline to 31 October 1997. This extension was granted to 311 candidates.
In the case of the complainant, his application was received on 2 September 1997. The reply of the institution, which included the new form, was forwarded to him on the same day. Since the ESC Traineeship Office was unaware of Mr M.'s trip abroad, it was considered that the time left for the closing of applications (34 days) should be sufficient for Mr M. to forward back the new application.
The ESC stated that if the complainant at his return, at the beginning of October, had contacted the institution, an additional extension would have been granted to him. Since the complainant did not request any such extension, the ESC could not consider his application valid.
Nevertheless, in the reply of the ESC, the institution stated that they urge him to apply again for the next training period.
The complainant's observations
I forwarded the ESC's comments to the complainant with an invitation to make observations. I have received no observation.

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN OMBUDSMAN

On the basis of the information provided by the complainant and the observations submitted by the Economic and Social Committee, the Ombudsman has reached the following conclusions:
1. The exclusion of Mr M. in the selection of ESC traineeship candidates for the Spring 1998, resulted from his failure to use a proper application form. The new forms had been introduced following the entry into force of new rules governing ESC traineeships (Decision 323/97 A). The complainant, however, was not aware of this change until after the closing date for applications.
2. The institution has argued that the new applications had to be established in accordance with the change of legal provisions. Since these rules entered into force on 1 June 1997, the institution had to apply them in the following selection procedure closing on 30 September 1997.
A special system was therefore set up to deal with this short transitory period, by which applications using the old forms would be returned to candidates and a new application immediately send to them. In case of old applications forms received after 5 September, the closing date was extended to 31 October.
3. Since the letter of the complainant reached the ESC by 5 September, the deadline for his new application was set on 30 September 1997. It was most unfortunate that because of the late dispatch of the ESC reply, and the absence of the complainant during that period of time, his application could not be sent on time.
4. In view of the factual and legal constrains faced by the ESC, it appears that the administrative arrangements set up by this institution to deal with the introduction of new application forms for traineeships were reasonable.
It could be arguable, however, whether or not an additional extension should have been granted to all candidates using the old forms, regardless of the date of arrival of his first application. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman takes note of the flexible manner with which the ESC dealt with late applications in this particular selection procedure. The Ombudsman also notes the willingness of the institution to reconsider the complainant's application for future traineeship periods.
The Ombudsman therefore finds that there is no evidence of maladministration in this case.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the Economic and Social Committee. The Ombudsman has therefore decided to close the case.
The President of the Economic and Social Committee will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely,
Jacob SÖDERMAN