The background to the complaint

1. The "Framework Rules on working conditions of local staff of the Commission of the European Communities in service in third countries"[1] (the 'Framework Rules') and the "Rules setting out the specific conditions of employment of local staff in service in [city X]"[2] (the 'Specific Rules') provide for a legal framework for the conditions of employment, rights and obligations of the local staff of the European Union's Permanent Delegation to the International Organisations in [city X] ('the Delegation').

2. Local agents of the Delegation had a dispute with the Commission, concerning two issues: (a) the extension of the authorisation to work part-time, (b) their entitlement to family allowances.

The relevant facts related to the first issue are as follows:

3. [date], the Head of the Delegation authorised three local agents to work part-time. The local agents in question were three women with dependent children; one had a child suffering from a serious illness[3], the second was a mother of twins and the third was a single mother.

4. On [date], the above-mentioned local agents asked the Head of the Delegation for an extension of the authorisation to work part-time. The Head of the Delegation submitted the matter to the Director of the then DG Relex[4] of the European Commission (the 'Director'). In his reply of [date], the Director stated that "neither the Framework rules nor Specific Rules could constitute a legal basis for granting reduced working hours to local agents". He therefore decided to reject the local agents' request for an extension. The Director added that "[i]n order not to end this practice abruptly, a phasing out of the part-time work until [date], would allow [the local agents] to find other arrangements".

5. On [date], the complainant, acting as a representative of the Staff Committee of the Delegation[5], appealed on behalf of the three local agents against the aforementioned Director's decision. He argued that, according to Article 9(1) of the Specific Rules[6], the local staff could benefit from the rights and obligations foreseen by the relevant law of [country Y], as well as from those foreseen by the "Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community" ('CEOS').[7] Given that the law of [country Y] foresees the possibility of agents working part-time, the three local agents should be allowed to benefit from this opportunity to effectively organise their working time.

6. In his reply rejecting the complainant's appeal, the Director stated that, from [date] to [date], a Commission official had been on a mission in [city X] to check the legal working status of the local staff of the Delegation. This official had concluded that "the part-time regime was not a practice largely implemented which could be enforceable as a law in [country Y] or in the [city X]". The Director argued that the authorisations permitting the three local agents to work part-time had been granted for a limited period of time, by way of exception. These authorisations could not constitute a de facto modification of the Specific Rules.

7. Subsequently, the complainant submitted the matter to the Commission's Staff mediator[8]. On [date], the Commission's Staff mediator recommended that the Director extend, on an exceptional basis, the length of the phasing-out period until [date]. The Director accepted the recommendation.

The relevant facts related to the second issue are as follows:

8. Article 19(1) of the Specific Rules[9] provides that a local agent who has a dependent child within the meaning of the relevant law of [country Y] on family allowances, is entitled to the allowances foreseen by that law.

9. On [date], the Head of the Delegation informed the above-mentioned members of the local staff, who were not citizens of [country Y], but who permanently resided in [country Y] and, therefore, held a [country Y]"E" legitimation card ('the E-legitimation card holders') that the Commission had decided to stop paying the family allowances to them as of [date]. This was due to the fact that they were not affiliated with the social security scheme (name of the insurance company[10])of [country Y], unlike: (i) the members of the Delegation's local staff who were [country Y] nationals; and (ii) those who held a [country Y] residence permit, category A or B. The staff referred to in the aforementioned points (i) and (ii) had already been affiliated with the [name of the insurance company] under the status of "self-employed workers".

10. On [date], the complainant turned to the Director, opposing the above decision of the Head of the Delegation. He referred to Article 8 of the Framework Rules, according to which the local staff in the EU Delegations are entitled to a basic monthly salary and to allowances, as foreseen by local law and/or local practice[11]. According to the complainant, the disputed allowances were of a contractual nature and were owed by the Delegation to the members of its local staff who hold the E-legitimation card.

11. Subsequently, on [date], the Commission asked a law firm of [country Y] for legal advice as regards the relevant law of [Country Y] on the family allowances for the E-legitimation card holders. It asked whether it was common practice to ask the local staff concerned for the reimbursement of the family allowances already paid. The law firm of [country Y] found that, according to law of [country Y], the Delegation should pay the E-legitimation card holders family allowances because they were contractual in nature. The local staff should thus not be asked to reimburse the allowances that the Delegation had already paid to them.

12. On [date], the Director decided that family allowances would be further paid to the E-legitimation card holders on the condition that they could provide evidence that they had actually transferred the amounts paid to them by the Delegation in the past to the relevant compensation funds of [country Y] equivalent to the [name of the insurance company] (the 'specific condition'). In doing so, these staff members would be in the same position as the other category of local agents (the local agents of nationality of [country Y] or holders of a residence permit A or B of [country Y]).

13. As of [date], in compliance with the legislation of [country Y], whereby each local agent had to subscribe to a social security scheme, the Delegation introduced a new practice. It started paying its local agents' family allowances (including the family allowances of the E-legitimation card holders) directly to the "Caisse [city X] de compensation".

14. On 8 March 2010, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The subject matter of the inquiry

15. In his complaint, the complainant alleged that the Commission failed to provide convincing reasons:

(1) For its decision to deny the local agents concerned authorisation to work part-time; and

(2) For its decision: (i) not to pay family allowances to local agents of the EU Delegation holding an E-legitimation card in [date], unless they comply with a "specific condition" imposed by it; and (ii) to ask these local agents to reimburse the family allowances already paid.

16. He claimed that the Commission should:

(1) Authorise the relevant local agents to continue working part-time;

(2) Pay the family allowances to the local agents who are holders of an E-legitimation card.

The inquiry

17. On 26 May 2010, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry regarding the complainant's aforementioned allegations and claims.

18. On 25 August 2010, the Commission sent its opinion. The Ombudsman forwarded it to the complainant with an invitation to make observations, which he sent on 27 September 2010.

19. On 4 October 2011, the Ombudsman made a friendly solution proposal to which the European External Action Service (EEAS)[12] replied on 30 November 2011. The reply was sent to the complainant for observations. The complainant sent observations on 30 January 2012.

The Ombudsman's analysis and conclusions

A. Alleged failure to provide convincing reasons for the denial of the right to work part-time and the relevant claim

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

20. In support of his allegation, the complainant argued that, according to Article 9 of the Specific Rules[13], the local staff could benefit from the rights and obligations foreseen by the CEOS and the relevant legislation of [country Y]. Moreover, the Commission should reasonably have been aware of the common practice in [country Y] that workers may be authorised to work on a part-time basis. He enclosed with his complaint official statistics issued by [country Y] for 2008. Given that, according to the relevant statistics, more than half of working women had a part-time job, compared with one-eighth of the men employed, he took the view that part-time work was a "typical characteristic of women's working life in [country Y]".

21. In its opinion, the Commission stated that it decided not to allow part-time work because there was no provision in the CEOS, the Framework Rules or in the Specific Rules which allowed local agents in Delegations to work part-time. Moreover, it confirmed that there were "no binding provisions" in the legislation of [country Y] according to which part-time work should be granted. The Commission also noted that there was no generalised practice for such a form of employment having a legally binding effect in [country Y] and/or in the [city X] region. Taking into account the lack of a legal basis and "the interests of the service", the Commission stated that it could not allow local agents of the Delegation to work part-time.

22. In his observations, the complainant pointed out that in June 2008, 56.9% of working women in [country Y] worked on a part-time basis. He also took the view that the Framework Rules and the Specific Rules do not prohibit local agents from working part-time.

The Ombudsman's preliminary assessment leading to a friendly solution proposal

23. In its opinion, the Commission gave its reasons for suspending the authorisation it had granted to the three local agents to work part-time on the following grounds: (i) there is no common practice in [country Y] for working women to work part-time; (ii) there are "no binding provisions" in law of [country Y] in this respect and the CEOS, the Framework Rules or the Specific Rules do not include any provisions on granting part-time work; and (iii) there is no "interest of the service" that permits part-time work. The Ombudsman thus assessed the above justifications.

24. As regards point (i), the Ombudsman was of the view that it is not unreasonable to consider that, in light of the figure provided by the complainant (56.9% of working women in [country Y] are employed on a part-time basis), part-time work is, at least, a common option granted to women in [country Y].

25. As regards point (ii), the Ombudsman did not clearly understand to which kind of legal provisions the Commission wished to refer, when it stated that there were no "binding provisions" in the legislation of [country Y] on working part-time. Under national law, a part-time working scheme is normally either governed by collective labour agreements or by contracts concluded individually between the employer and employee, both of which have a legally binding effect between the parties only. Therefore, part-time work is an option offered by the employer to its employees in their contracts. Even if there are no general "binding provisions" in the law of [country Y] that part-time work should be compulsorily granted upon request, the parties of the collective or individual working agreements are free to negotiate and allow for such a possibility.

26. According to well established case-law, the rights and obligations of local agents are governed by their employment contract, which is based on local legislation[14]. It appears that indeed, in [date], the local agents, all of whom are mothers (the first one has to take care of her sick child, the second is a mother of twins and the third one is a single mother), successfully negotiated part-time positions with the Delegation and their contracts allowed for such a form of employment for many years.

27. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the complainant in his observations, even if the CEOS, the Framework Rules and the Specific Rules are silent in respect of part-time work, they do not, however, forbid such a form of employment to be agreed upon.

28. The Commission's ground (ii) could not therefore be accepted.

29. As regards point (iii), the Ombudsman considered that the term "interest of the service" was not a self-explanatory term but requires further explanation concerning what such interests of the service could be, in the given circumstances. According to the case-law of the EU courts, the Appointing Authority enjoys a discretionary power in assessing the interests of the service[15]. However, the above discretion cannot be arbitrary and the institution should properly explain why the relevant decision based on the interests of the service was taken. To do so would be in accordance with the principles of good administration and the institution's duty to have regard for the welfare of officials[16].

30. In the present case, however, the Commission failed to give any explanation for its decision that there was no "interest of the service" to allow the relevant local agents to work part-time. In addition, the Commission did not give reasons why such a form of work should be banned within the Delegation for all its local employees. Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union[17] and Article 18 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour[18], however, require such reasons to be given.

31. The Ombudsman took the view, therefore, that the Commission should re-examine the issue of whether the interest of the service really does require the banning of part-time work within the Delegation in general, and if so, to balance that interest against the welfare of the three local agents concerned, who all have objectively complicated family situations. In doing so, the Commission should take into account that Article 33 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights provides for legal, economic and social protection of the family and that working part-time would allow the persons concerned to effectively manage their private and professional lives.

32. The Ombudsman thus made a proposal for a friendly solution, in accordance with Article 3(5) of his Statute. This proposal read as follows: "Taking into account the Ombudsman's findings, the Commission could: (1) re-examine whether the interest of the service justifies refusal to allow part-time working by local staff in the Delegation either in general, or in the specific cases concerned; and (2) in the event that the re-examination leads the Commission to maintain its position that part-time working is incompatible with the interest of the service to give adequate reasons, which address all the interests at stake."

The arguments presented to the Ombudsman after his friendly solution proposal

33. The EEAS[19] rejected the Ombudsman's proposal for a friendly solution. It reiterated that the Commission decided not to extend the authorisation for the three local agents concerned to work part-time because i) there are "no binding provisions" in the law of [country Y] for working women to work part-time, and ii) the CEOS, the Framework Rules or the Specific Rules do not include any provisions on granting part-time work. The EEAS added that this decision is based on a February 2010 opinion of the Commission's Legal Service[20]. According to this opinion, the Commission cannot grant local agents authorisation to work part-time in the absence of any legal basis in the CEOS. By analogy, the Staff Regulations had to be amended in 2004 to allow granting parental leave to officials. Thus, the decisions not to grant authorisation to work part-time corrected an error of appreciation of the Commission. In light of foregoing, the EEAS considered that the Commission properly reasoned its decision not to extend the authorisation for the three local agents to work part-time.

34. The EEAS also recalled that the three local agents' part-time work was scheduled to be phased out until [date] and it was extended to [date]. Moreover, the EEAS rejected the Ombudsman's remark that the local agents successfully negotiated part-time positions with the Delegation and their contracts allowed for such a form of employment for many years. In this respect, the EEAS emphasised that authorisation to work part-time was granted to the three local agents exceptionally, for limited periods and not on the basis of their work contracts.

35. The EEAS agreed that, although the CEOS, the Framework Rules and the Specific Rules are silent in respect of part-time work, they do not forbid such a form of employment from being agreed upon. However, the lack of legal basis precludes a decision to grant part-time work. In the EEAS's view, working part-time is not an option which may be negotiated between parties and which the employer may grant in the absence of a binding legal basis.

36. The EEAS further took the view that the 56.9% figure (representing working women in [country Y] who are employed on a part-time basis) provided by the complainant indicates only a trend but does not constitute "a binding legal basis or a common practice in [country Y] for working women to work part-time".

37. The EEAS also pointed out that the Commission's decision not to extend the authorisation for part-time work was not motivated by considerations relating to the interest of the service. The Commission's reference to the interest of the service in its opinion was a general remark, which is not linked to the case of the three local agents. The purpose of this remark was to point out that the interest of the service is also a criterion to be considered, in addition to the existence of a binding legal basis, when deciding on whether or not to grant authorisation for part-time work. For instance, in the case of the local staff involved in the financial circuit as initiators, the interest of the service must also be considered (in addition to the legal basis criterion) before taking a decision on granting authorisation for part-time work.

38. The EEAS must guarantee the equal treatment of all local agents in its Delegations. In this respect, the EEAS rejected numerous requests for authorisation to work part-time because of the lack of an adequate legal basis. The EEAS exceptionally granted to the three local agents the possibility to work part-time for two years, in order to organise better the transition toward full-time work. However, another extension of this period would modify de facto the legal basis and infringe the principle of equal treatment.

39. Finally, the EEAS stated that 'flexible time' is an option which allows staff in all Delegations to accommodate the requirements of both professional and private life.

40. In his observations, the complainant reiterated that although there are no legally binding rules in [country Y] concerning part-time work, there is a common practice in this respect, which is recognised by the national authorities. The complainant gave examples of the practice of part-time work existent in several companies in [country Y].

The Ombudsman's assessment leading to a draft recommendation

41. The Ombudsman regrets that, in reply to his friendly solution proposal, the EEAS put forward, in sum, the same arguments as those which the Commission had submitted in its opinion on the present complaint.

42. Furthermore, the Ombudsman reiterates that, although there are no legally binding provisions in the law of [country Y] which would require employers to grant authorisation for part-time work, the statistical data provided by the complainant as regards women's part-time work in [country Y] proves that part-time work is a common practice within the labour market of [country Y] and not just a trend. Indeed, statistical data may serve as reliable evidence[21]. Moreover, and as shown by the complainant in his observations[22], this practice is largely endorsed by the relevant administrative authorities.

43. Second, the Ombudsman notes that the EEAS argued that (i) there was no legal basis in the relevant EU legislation[23] for considering (positively or negatively) requests for part-time work in the case of local agents; (ii) the authorisations in question granted in 2001 did not result from the individual contracts; and (iii) local staff in other delegations do not have a system governing part-time work.

44. The Ombudsman recalls, however, that, pursuant to Article 9(1) of the Specific Rules[24], the rights and obligations of the local staff in question should result from the applicable local law (written and customary), in addition to the relevant EU law. Indeed, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations[25] requires the Delegations to comply with the local law. It follows that, if EU law does not regulate the matter, the local law and custom should, reasonably, fill the lacuna. In this respect, it should also be noted that the conditions of employment of local staff members in each EU delegation are governed by a particular local law which differs from one country to another (even though all staff members are subject to the same EU rules) and for that reason, the comparison between local staff working for different delegations is not relevant in the present case. According to established case-law, the principle of equal treatment requires that two categories of persons whose relevant legal and factual situation is essentially the same be treated in the same manner and that two categories of persons who are in different legal and factual situations be treated differently. The EEAS did not show that the legal situation of local agents in other delegations is the same as that of the three local agents concerned.

45. On the basis of the explanations provided by the EEAS, the Ombudsman also understands that the interest of the service does not play any role in the decision as to whether or not to grant the three agents authorisation to work part-time or, at least, does not preclude such a decision.

46. As regards the EEAS's argument on 'flexi-time', the Ombudsman does not share the view that, in sum, flexible time and part-time work are one and the same thing because they are not equally suitable to respond to the same needs (of both professional and private life) of workers with family responsibilities.

47. The Ombudsman emphasises that flexible time cannot supplement or replace part-time work. In this respect, while flexible time could accommodate staff members' requirements relating to both professional and private life in a limited number of situations, it does not affect the number of working hours and remains an employment option for a full-time job. Such option does not necessarily accommodate all the needs of workers with family responsibilities.

48. Furthermore, the Ombudsman does not understand the EEAS's comment on the change in the Staff Regulations. It indeed appears that part-time work of local agents will still not be referred to in the newest version of the Staff Regulations, which is still under discussion. This again confirms that the applicable local written or customary law will be the only relevant law in the present case.

49. In light of the foregoing, the Ombudsman concludes that, even if the law of [country Y] does not impose an obligation to grant authorisation to work part-time, part-time work is a common legal practice in [country Y] and, therefore, this practice should be followed by the Delegation in [city X] in the absence of relevant provisions in the applicable EU legislation. Moreover, the EEAS's arguments are not sufficient to conclude otherwise.

50. In addition, the Ombudsman considers that the EEAS should not only review its decision concerning the three local agents in [country Y], but it could also consider reviewing its policy concerning part-time work for local staff in its delegations all over the world.

51. The Ombudsman notes that Article 1d of the Staff Regulations encourages the EU institutions to adopt measures providing for specific advantages in order to make it easier for the under-represented sex to pursue a vocational activity or to prevent or compensate for disadvantages in professional careers. Moreover, the Commission itself acknowledged[26] that working part-time is an option that could help balance professional and private and family life.

52. Moreover, the EEAS could draw inspiration from the best practices identified and the relevant rules established by the International Labour Organisation. This organisation acknowledged the specific needs of workers with family responsibilities by adopting a specific Convention[27]. The Preamble of this Convention asserts that "many of the problems facing all workers are aggravated in the case of workers with family responsibilities" and it recognises "the need to improve the conditions of the latter ... by measures responding to their special needs" (emphasis added). The Convention stipulates that Member States should enable persons with family responsibilities who are engaged or wish to engage in employment to exercise their right to do so without being subject to discrimination and, to the extent possible, without conflict between their employment and family responsibilities[28].

53. The International Labour Organisation took a step further and recognised part-time work[29] to be an appropriate form of employment which could allow workers with family responsibilities effectively to manage their private and professional lives. The Convention on Part-Time Work requires ratifying States to "review … laws and regulations that may prevent or discourage recourse to or acceptance of part-time work" and to have regard to the "needs and preferences of specific groups", such as workers with family responsibilities[30].

54. In light of the above, the Ombudsman takes the view that the EEAS failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision to deny the three local agents concerned authorisation to work part-time. This constitutes an instance of maladministration. He will therefore make a draft recommendation below, in accordance with Article 3(6) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman.

B. Alleged failure to provide convincing reasons for its decision not to pay family allowances to local agents in question

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

55. In support of his allegation, the complainant stated that: (i) The Commission did not follow the advice of the law firm of [country Y], which took the view that the family allowances in question were of a contractual nature and had to be paid by the Delegation to the E-legitimation card holders. He further stated that: (ii) the Delegation had paid family allowances directly to the E-legitimation card holders for years. The Delegation suddenly decided to revoke its practice, without informing the relevant local agents accordingly.

56. In its opinion, the Commission explained that before [date], the Delegation was considered by authorities of [country Y] as an employer being exempted from subscribing to the [insurance company]. The Delegation itself paid the family allowances to the relevant local staff. This situation was not in compliance with law on social security insurance of [country Y]. Therefore, the Delegation asked the E-legitimation card holders to register themselves with [insurance company] (or with a similar scheme) and to pay their own contributions to such schemes, in order to receive the benefits directly from the schemes. In this way, the Commission could subsequently repay the staff these contributions, as it does in the case of those members of the staff who are required to subscribe to the [insurance company] (the nationals of [country Y] and the holders of the residence permit A or B of [country Y]). The Commission stated that it emerged from checks carried out by DG Relex that the local agents in question did not subscribe to the [insurance company] or to a similar scheme. The Commission therefore stopped paying the relevant allowances to them as of [date]. Starting from [date], the law of [country Y] changed and the Delegation had to pay the contributions to the family allowances of its entire staff directly to the "Caisse [ville X] de compensation".

57. The Commission stated that family allowances are part of the benefits granted by the [insurance company] and that the institution cannot replace the [insurance company] in this role. Article 19(1) of the Specific Rules[31] does not refer to any requirement that the Commission must pay family allowances directly to its local staff, regardless of the existence of public allowances of the same kind. It clearly establishes that family allowances granted to local agents are allowances paid by the social scheme of [country Y].

58. The Commission concluded that local agents were unduly granted family allowances "for a certain period of time". In light of both its obligation to implement legislation of [country Y] and the local authorities' request in this respect, as well as the need to respect the financial and budgetary rules according to which each expenditure has to be duly justified, the Commission decided to stop paying them the allowances. It decided, however, not to recover from the relevant local agents the undue payment for the family allowances already paid. The Commission's decision not to recover the undue payment is indicative of its understanding of the situation of the relevant local agents.

59. In his observations, the complainant repeated his view that the law firm of [country Y] concluded that the family allowances were of a contractual nature and that the local agents should not be asked to provide reimbursements for the relevant amounts already paid.

The Ombudsman's assessment

60. In the Ombudsman's understanding, if an employee in [country Y] is obliged to subscribe to the [insurance company] pursuant to the law of [country Y], he/she has to pay his/her contributions to the [insurance company] in order to be paid allowances by the [insurance company] afterwards. Up to 2010, the E-legitimation card holders were not, however, subscribed, because their employer, the Delegation, was exempted from paying the contributions to the [insurance company] for them. As a result, the Delegation was directly paying them the sums corresponding to the relevant allowances.

61. The Commission argued, however, that, in its opinion, these sums could not be treated as family allowances in terms of the law of [country Y] because the allowances should only be paid by the funds of [country Y]. Therefore, the E-legitimation card holders should have transferred the sums paid by the Commission to the relevant schemes and they should receive payment of the family allowances from these schemes only.

62. The Ombudsman noted that the Commission did not indicate which law of [country Y] it relied on in order to justify its argument that it was exempted from paying the contributions to the [insurance company].

63. Such a reference to a specific law of [country Y] would have been a necessary element for the Ombudsman to evaluate this aspect of the case, given the content of the legal opinion issued by the law firm of [country Y] that the sums paid by the Commission were due because the allowances were of a contractual nature. In addition, it should be noted that Article 19(1) of the Specific Rules does not mention which authority has to pay the family allowances to the local staff.

64. However, the Ombudsman notes that the Commission agreed not to ask for the reimbursement of the allowances paid to the staff concerned in [date]. In addition, since [date], it has been paying the relevant contributions to the "Caisse [ville X] de compensation" for the E-legitimation card holders. As a result, there is no need to pursue the inquiry into this matter any further.

C. The draft recommendation

On the basis of his inquiries into this complaint, the Ombudsman makes the following draft recommendation to the EEAS:

The EEAS should review its decision to deny the three local agents concerned authorisation to work part-time or, in case it decides to maintain it, provide adequate reasons for it.

The EEAS and the complainant will be informed of this draft recommendation. In accordance with Article 3(6) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman, the EEAS shall send a detailed opinion by 30 September 2012. The detailed opinion could consist of the acceptance of the draft recommendation and a description of how it has been implemented.

 

P. Nikiforos Diamandouros

Done in Strasbourg on 25 June 2012

---

[1] Administrative Information, Special Edition, 22 June1990.

[2] Internal document of the Commission's Delegation in [city X]- 27 June 1994.

[3] The illness was [illness]

[4] In 2010, DG Relex was merged into the "European External Action Service".

[5] In the course of the Ombudsman's inquiry, another member of the Staff Committee of the Delegation in [city X] assumed the role of representing the three local agents in their complaint against the Commission. For practical reasons, the complainant is referred to in the masculine form.

[6] Article 9(1) of the Specific Rules reads as follows (French original version): "L'agent local en service à la Délégation permanente de la Commission des Communautés européennes à [ville X] est soumis et se voit reconnaitre l'ensemble des droits et obligations prévus par le RAA et la législation de [pays Y] applicable en la matière."

[7] Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 1962 P 45, p. 1385).

[8] According to the information provided on the European Commission's website, (http://ec.europa.eu/reform/2002) the Commission's Staff mediator's aim is to provide rapid solutions by helping to resolve disputes between the Commission and its staff.

[9] Article 19(1) of the Specific Rules reads as follows (French original version): "L'agent local ayant des enfants à charge, au sens de la législation de [pays Y] en matière d'allocations familiales, bénéficie des allocations prévues à ce régime."

[10]

[11] Article 8 of the Framework Rules reads as follows: "La rémunération de l'agent local comprend un salaire mensuel de base, les allocations et/ou indemnités prévues par la réglementation et/ou les usages locaux. (...)"

[12] See footnote 1.

[13] Article 9(1) of the 'Specific Rules' reads as follows (French original version): "L'agent local en service à la Délégation permanente de la Commission des Communautés européennes à [ville X] est soumis et se voit reconnaitre l'ensemble des droits et obligations prévus par le RAA et la législation de [pays Y] applicable en la matière."

[14] See case 105/80 Hugues Desmedt v Commission [1981] ECR p 1701- paragraphs 12, 13 and 14.

[15] See, for instance, the Appointing Authority's discretionary powers in assessing the interests of the service as regards the assignment of an official by transfer to another post: Case T-50/92, Fiorani versus Parliament, ECR [1993], p I-1035, para.35; Cases C-23 and C-24/87, Aldinger and Virgili versus Parliament ECR [1988], p. 2841, para.17 and 18.

[16] Case F-21/06 Joao da Silva v Commission of the European Communities ECR-SC 2007 p. I-A-1-179, II-A-1-981, para 80: "Such a solution is all the more necessary since it is in accordance with the administration’s duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, which in particular implies, according to settled case law, that when the relevant authority takes a decision concerning the position of an official, it should take into consideration all the factors capable of affecting its decision and that when doing so it should take into account not only the interests of the service but also those of the official concerned".

[17] Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union reads as follows:

"Right to good administration

1. Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union.

2. This right includes: (...)

(c) the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions. (...)"

[18] Article 18 ("Duty to state the grounds of decisions") of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour: (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu)

"1. Every decision of the Institution which may adversely affect the rights or interests of a private person shall state the grounds on which it is based by indicating clearly the relevant facts and the legal basis of the decision."

[19] See footnote 1.

[20] The EEAS did not provide a copy of this document.

[21] Case C-415/10, Meister v.Speech Design Carrier System GmbH, judgment of 19 April 2012, not yet published in the ECR, paragraph 43.

[22] The complainant provided a copy of a document issued by the authorities of [country Y] entitled "Manuel PME - Travail et famille - Mesures visant à concilier vie professionnelle et vie familiale dans les petites et moyennes entreprises".

[23] The CEOS, the Framework Rules and the Specific Rules.

[24] Article 9(1) of the Specific Rules reads as follows (French original version): "L'agent local en service à la Délégation permanente de la Commission des Communautés européennes [ville Y] est soumis et se voit reconnaitre l'ensemble des droits et obligations prévus par le RAA et la législation de [pays Y] applicable en la matière."

[25] See Article 41(1) of the Convention on Diplomatic Relations: "Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State".

[26] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 3 October 2008 – A better work-life balance: stronger support for reconciling professional, private and family life [COM(2008) 635 – Not published in the Official Journal].

[27] ILO Convention (No 156) concerning Equal Opportunities and Equal Treatment for Men and Women Workers: Workers with Family Responsibilities, adopted in 1981.

[28] Article 3 of the Convention.

[29] Convention concerning Part-Time Work, adopted in 1994.

[30] Article 9 of the Convention.

[31] See footnote 9 above.