(Made in accordance with Article 3(6) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman[1])

THE BACKGROUND TO THE COMPLAINT

1. On 6 September 2006, the European Parliament adopted a decision implementing a Pilot traineeship programme for persons with disabilities. It was coordinated by a team of officials from the services of three different Directorates-General (DGs) within Parliament: the Equal Opportunities and Diversity Unit (EODU), the Traineeship Office (TO) and the Unit for Prevention and Well-being at Work (UPWB). The programme was launched in March 2007.

2. Between 15 September and 15 October 2006, Parliament published on its website (EUROPARL) a call for applications for the above programme. The following documents were published on the website, together with the text of the call:

• a description of the Pilot traineeship programme for people with disabilities;
• the Internal rules governing traineeships and study visits in the Secretariat of the European Parliament;
• the Code of good practice for the employment of people with disabilities; and
• a sample of the application form and an online application form.

3. The complainant submitted an online application, which contained a box for applicants to indicate whether they had a disability. The complainant ticked that box. She also indicated her preferences for the following DGs within Parliament: the DG for the Presidency, the DG for External Policies (DG EXPO) and the Legal Service. The complainant indicated Brussels as her first choice for completing the traineeship and Strasbourg as her second.

4. On 26 October 2006, Parliament's Traineeship Office asked the complainant via e-mail to provide it "with information about the disability, and any specific adaptation or assistance [she] might need." The e-mail further clarified that "any information about [the complainant's] disability will only be used within the Secretariat of the European Parliament and only for the purpose of providing reasonable accommodation, should [the complainant] be selected."

5. On the same day, the complainant sent the requested information. She explained that "the most common obstacles that [she] usually meets are steps and stairs at buildings, at means of transport and even along the road. She also meets obstacles inside buildings. These obstacles consist of narrow doors, under 70 cm width, narrow rooms in which [she did not have] enough space to handle [her] wheelchair, narrow toilets or inaccessible ones for [her] wheelchair". She pointed out that she needed accessible means of transportation and that "the place of work should be also adapted: without steps, with access to the toilet and enough room for [her] wheelchair." The complainant also stated that she would need an accessible flat, with sufficient space to allow her to move around in her wheelchair. She emphasised that "[she] cannot lean on her legs at all and [she] cannot feel them".

6. he complainant was selected to take part in the programme and the traineeship offer was sent to her. She was assigned to DG EXPO, Subcommittee on Human Rights, in Brussels.

7. The complainant accepted the traineeship offer. The traineeship started on 1 March 2007 and ended on 31 July 2007.

THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE INQUIRY

8. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the European Parliament failed:

1. to provide her with the training for which she had applied; and
2. to ensure that she was treated appropriately during her traineeship.

THE INQUIRY

9. On 31 January 2008, Parliament requested an extension of the deadline to submit its opinion until 29 February 2008. Parliament sent its opinion on 28 February 2008, which was forwarded to the complainant for her observations. She sent her observations on 17 April 2008.

10. On 29 May 2008, the Ombudsman asked Parliament for further information in relation to the present case. Parliament sent its reply on 21 July 2008. This reply was also forwarded to the complainant with an invitation to make observations, which she sent on 11 August 2008.

THE OMBUDSMAN'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

A. Parliament's alleged failure to provide the complainant with the kind of training for which she had applied

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

11. In support of the above allegation, the complainant argued that Parliament did not inform her, before her arrival in Brussels, that her tasks would be "checking the accessibility of buildings, writing reports for the EODU or taking part in meetings related to disability" instead of working in the Secretariat of the Subcommittee on Human Rights.

12. In its opinion, Parliament stated that there was a high number of applicants for the 'standard' paid traineeship. By applying for the 'special' Pilot traineeship programme for people with disabilities, the complainant increased her chance of obtaining a traineeship within the Parliament (ten candidates were selected for the period March - July 2007 for the Pilot programme).

13. Further, Parliament underlined that the complainant voluntarily choose to apply for the Pilot traineeship programme for people with disabilities. Even though the disability was one of the conditions of eligibility for the programme, the candidates were selected on the basis of their skills to best suit the job profile.

14. On 19 December 2006, the EODU informed the complainant by telephone that she had been selected for a traineeship under the Pilot traineeship programme for people with disabilities. This information was confirmed by an e-mail sent from the mailbox of the said Pilot programme. The complainant accepted the offer.

15. arliament pointed out that the complainant performed "various tasks" within the Subcommittee on Human Rights, namely, "she drafted notes, minor reports and letters; she searched for background information and news articles; she attended meetings and provided summaries" In her traineeship report, the complainant assessed most of the aspects of her work within Parliament as "satisfactory".

The Ombudsman's assessment

16. It appears from Parliament's opinion that, at the time of the present complaint, there were 2 traineeship programmes within Parliament: (i) the 'standard' programme and (ii) the 'special' Pilot programme for people with disabilities.

17. The complainant argued that, at the beginning of her traineeship, Parliament asked her to "check door by door, garage by garage to find an easy way of getting inside and to provide them with reports to prepare everything for [future] trainees with disabilities". Parliament did not contest this fact.

18. However, when the complainant applied for the traineeship, she was not aware that she would be requested to carry out the above-mentioned specific duties during her traineeship.

19. In this regard, the website referring to the Pilot programme did not make any references to such duties. The potential candidates could, therefore, reasonably expect that the duties of trainees with disabilities would be the same as those of trainees completing the 'standard' traineeship.

20. Even if the complainant had known of Parliament's decision implementing the Pilot programme in question, the said decision only contained the provision that trainees were required to submit a final report on their traineeship to evaluate their experience and give their views on the programme[2]. No more precise information was given concerning the fact that such reports would focus on the facilities available for disabled people or that there would be specific duties reserved for the disabled trainees. To add to this, the complainant's access to the above decision was difficult because the website referring to the Pilot programme did not contain a link to it.

21. Furthermore, the traineeship offer and the admission letter which the complainant received not only failed to detail the specific duties in question, but also made no mention whatsoever of the Pilot programme for people with disabilities. They only made references to the 'standard' traineeship programme.

22. n light of the above, the complainant could legitimately believe that she had been accepted for the traineeship programme in which her duties would be the same as the duties of the trainees accepted under the standard traineeship programme.

23. By failing to explain clearly to the complainant, before she accepted the traineeship offer, that her duties within the Pilot programme would be as detailed in paragraph 17 above, Parliament misled her. This was an instance of maladministration.

B. Parliament's alleged failure to ensure that the complainant was treated appropriately during her traineeship within the European Parliament

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

24. In support of her above allegation, the complainant pointed out that she had faced considerable accessibility problems upon her arrival and during her stay in Brussels. In this regard, she referred to the poor accessibility of Parliament's premises, as well as the lack of accessible transport facilities and the difficulties she experienced in finding a flat adapted to her needs in Brussels. She also underlined the insufficient support she had received from Parliament's services, in particular from the medical service and the EODU. She had to participate in EODU meetings and was asked to perform special duties as described in paragraph 17 above. Parliament had also published photos of her in her wheelchair and asked her to give interviews.

25. As regards her work as a trainee, the Subcommittee on Human Rights treated her as "someone sent there by the EODU." She emphasised that she did not want to be offered a traineeship because of her disability or for reasons related to it. She concluded that: "[she] was used by the service of Equal opportunities for propaganda without having their support. By no means had [she] come here to be the "disabled" of the European Parliament. [She] came here to forget about the word "disabled" and to look for ways of normal life among normal people. From this point of view, [she] was very much disappointed."

26. In its opinion, Parliament explained that its services checked the accessibility of the ATRIUM building (where the complainant was allocated) and made the necessary and feasible adaptations before her arrival. Nevertheless, the institution must follow rigid administrative procedures and "it was not easy to find timely ad hoc solutions". Following the complainant's request for a special room to rest, the medical service offered to make a room with a bed available to her. The photos on which the complainant appeared were taken by an official Parliament photographer during a seminar dealing with disability policy, which she had chosen to attend.

27. As regards the accessibility problems faced by the complainant upon her arrival in Brussels, Parliament pointed out that trainees remained primarily responsible for finding accommodation, signing contracts and finding suitable routes for their daily commute to and from work. However, in the framework of the Pilot traineeship programme, Parliament's services had "actively" arranged facilities for the trainees outside their workplace. Six weeks before the end of the traineeship period, Parliament received a positive response from the Brussels City administration that the complainant could use the City transport provided for disabled persons. However, she declined that offer. Nevertheless, she was able to come to work without having to use public transport, given that she had found accommodation close to Parliament's premises.

28. Given the difficulties that trainees with disabilities may encounter, the complainant's monthly scholarship was supplemented with a 'disability allowance'. She therefore received approximately EUR 2 240 per month.

The Ombudsman's assessment

29. The Ombudsman first notes that, on the request of Parliament, the complainant submitted a detailed description of her needs and problems related to her disability. In this respect, she explained the common obstacles that she usually experienced. These included steps, narrow doors, inaccessible toilets, not enough space for her wheelchair, and inaccessible means of transportation (paragraph 5 above).

30. The Ombudsman also points out that, in its opinion, Parliament itself stated that, in 2003, it had participated in a comprehensive accessibility audit of all the EU institutions. Following this audit, an Interservice Working Group (IWC) was set up in order to implement the recommendations of the audit and find solutions to improve the accessibility of Parliament's premises. The report was submitted by the IWC in September 2006, that is to say, during the same month when the Pilot traineeship programme for people with disabilities was launched. It indicated that the studies concerning the accessibility of the ATRIUM building, where the complainant carried out her traineeship, would be made in late 2006, early 2007 and that the construction works were scheduled for 2007/ 2008.

31. In light of the above, the Ombudsman considers that Parliament knew that most of its premises, in particular the ATRIUM building were inappropriate for the complainant's condition. The building required extensive work, which would not end before the complainant started her traineeship. Additionally, Parliament was aware of the complainant's detailed needs well in advance of her commencing the traineeship.

32. The question therefore arises as to why Parliament invited the complainant to become a trainee and to work in that building when it knew that the infrastructure in its premises in Brussels did not at all meet the complainant's needs. One could also legitimately question the sense and the true purpose behind Parliament's asking the trainee to go and check every door and every corridor in that building to find out potential problems for disabled people, which were indeed already known to it.

33. The complainant stated that, when in Parliament, she had been hit by narrow revolving doors; she had to make detours to find accessible entrances and had to give explanations each time she used the MEPs' corridor, in which her wheelchair could enter (while in other corridors it could not). This was in spite of the fact that she had sent "a criminal record"[3] in order to obtain a special badge that would allow her to use the MEPs' corridor (the badge was in fact never provided). She also couldn't find appropriate toilets and some conference rooms were inaccessible to her. As she had experienced problems in using the canteen, Parliament had suggested that a fireman could assist her. The complainant also stated that there was no place to rest near her office and access to the medical service was too far away.

34. The complainant further pointed out that she had had problems finding an accessible apartment close to Parliament and could not use the Brussels City minibus for disabled persons.

35. All the above negative experiences could have been avoided. Parliament could reasonably have asked the complainant to work in a part of the building where there were no revolving doors and close to a toilet for persons with disabilities. It could have provided the complainant with the special badge to allow her to use the MEPs' canteen, instead of having to ask a fireman to accompany her in the other canteen. It would also have been objectively possible to provide a special room for the complainant to rest and sensitise the medical service that it needed to help her. All these practical measures could have been, but were not implemented.

36. It is also reasonable to expect that Parliament's services could have checked, before her arrival, whether some apartments from the list it had prepared were suitable or not for people in wheelchairs. It could have informed the complainant of those apartments adapted to her conditions instead of letting her visit a number of unsuitable apartments on her own. Parliament could also have checked the conditions for using the City of Brussels minibus (the bus was apparently reserved for permanent residents) and could have asked the Brussels authorities for a special waiver from these conditions before the complainant's arrival. The Ombudsman considers that most, if not all, of these problems could have been avoided. The additional payment Parliament gave the complainant, although well intentioned, ultimately did not resolve all of her problems.

37. Parliament did not take any of the measures needed to eliminate the above problems, although it could have done so. Moreover, as mentioned in paragraph 32 above, it is legitimate to question whether Parliament really did intend for the complainant to fulfil the normal duties of other trainees under the standard training programme or, as the complainant feels, to use her merely to test the accessibility of Parliament's buildings.

38. The complainant referred to the interviews she was asked to give and to photos taken of her in her wheelchair to be published in the "EP Newshound". The Ombudsman considers that the complainant's and her colleagues' presence in Parliament could have been dealt with more discretely. The Ombudsman recalls that people with disabilities face a wide range of obstacles which prevent them from ensuring equal opportunities, independence and full economic and social integration. In this context, their desire not to be identified by their disabilities, but rather to be appreciated for their professional merits, deserves particular care and attention.

39. The use of photos highlighting the complainant's disability could have strengthened her conviction that she was selected for the traineeship because of her disability and diminished her self confidence. The Ombudsman also fails to see why the fact that she voluntarily attended a public seminar can be invoked by Parliament to justify the publicity given to her photo without asking for her explicit consent.

40. The complainant emphasised that the Subcommittee on Human Rights, to which she was officially assigned, only asked her about her special duties under the Pilot programme and "treated her as being imposed by the EODU". In its opinion, Parliament neither challenged this statement nor provided a reasonable explanation for this fact[4]. The Ombudsman considers that, even if the complainant had been asked by the Subcommittee on Human Rights to perform some substantive tasks related to its work, she could not have reasonably devoted herself to such substantive matters. Indeed, she would have had too little time to do so if she also had to check the accessibility problems of an obviously inadequate building. It is therefore perfectly understandable that the complainant, who is a fully qualified lawyer wanting to be appreciated for her own merits regardless of her disability, felt very disappointed with the content of her traineeship as well.

41. The Ombudsman strongly supports and applauds the idea of integrating trainees with disabilities in the work of Parliament. The Ombudsman understands that the Traineeship programme for people with disabilities aimed at offering equal employment opportunities to persons with disabilities. He encourages and supports such positive measures for people with disabilities.

42. The recruitment for such a programme could be differentiated from the standard programme in order to facilitate the participation of people with disabilities. Nevertheless, their duties and the content of the programme should, as far as possible, be the same as that of trainees without disabilities. It should certainly not be 'special', or be the object of particular publicity campaigns, even if they are only internal to the institution.

43. In this respect, as the Human Rights High Commissioner of the United Nations pointed out within the preparatory discussion on the International Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities[5], a treatment which creates special mechanisms or institutions reserved for disabled persons leads only further to their social exclusion and should be avoided.

44. This is particularly important in relation to access to employment or professional training. Access to employment and professional development are of fundamental significance for every individual not merely as a means of earning one's living, but also as an important way of self-fulfilment and realisation of one's potential. When accepting the traineeship offer, the complainant emphasised in her correspondence with Parliament that she was committed to an independent life. Later, in her report on the traineeship she stated with bitterness that "[she] came here to forget about the word disabled and to look for ways of normal life among normal people. [She] was very much disappointed."

45. On the basis of the evidence available to him, the Ombudsman considers that Parliament failed to offer the complainant the same training possibilities as in the normal programme. By considerably limiting the duties of the complainant as a trainee to checking, on the basis of her own negative experiences, whether one of Parliament's buildings was ready to receive further employees/trainees with disabilities, Parliament acted unfairly and, in casu, hurt the complainant's dignity. Moreover, although in the present case the personal commitment of some of Parliament's officials cannot be ignored and deserves praise, the Ombudsman stresses that the implementation of the Programme should have occurred within Parliament's institutional framework. If more thorough measures had been taken by Parliament, this would have avoided having certain devoted officials to act at very short notice in order to help the complainant.

This was also an instance of maladministration.

46. The Ombudsman is aware that the problems identified in the framework of this inquiry occurred in what appears to be the first action of the Pilot Project that started at that time. He therefore cannot exclude that at least part of the problems identified in this inquiry might already have been considered and that the relevant measures have already been taken for future actions. In this respect, the Ombudsman notes Parliament's "regrets for any shortcomings in the practical implementation of the Pilot phase and the impact these may have had on the complainant's experience", as well as its commitment to improving the programme and continuing with these positive measures.

47. Finally, the Ombudsman notes with displeasure that Parliament stated that "considering the high number of applicants for the standard paid traineeship schemes (...), applying for the Pilot programme did in fact give [the complainant] more chances of obtaining a traineeship in the European Parliament". This can only be objectively interpreted as wanting to express the view that the complainant should consider herself lucky to have been awarded a traineeship in the first place, thanks to her disability. Parliament cannot ignore that the opinions it submits in the framework of the Ombudsman's inquiries are sent to the complainants for observations. Such a statement in response to an allegation of unfair treatment can only be considered as deeply offensive and totally unacceptable and can only contribute to the complainant's disappointment and understandable indignation and hurt. The Ombudsman deplores what he prefers to consider as a regrettable and clumsy lack of care and precision on the part of Parliament when drafting its opinion on the complaint. He trusts that Parliament, in its answer to the draft recommendation hereunder, will specifically deal with and rectify this very important issue.

C. The draft recommendation

On the basis of his inquiries into this complaint and in light of the above two instances of maladministration, the Ombudsman makes a corresponding draft recommendation to Parliament:

Parliament should offer to the complainant its deepest and sincerest apologies.

Parliament should also report on the measures that it has taken or intends to take with an eye to correcting the shortcoming identified by the Ombudsman in his inquiry.

Parliament and the complainant will be informed of this draft recommendation. In accordance with Article 3(6) of the Statute of the Ombudsman, Parliament shall send a detailed opinion by 28 February 2009. The detailed opinion could consist of the acceptance of the Ombudsman's decision and a description of the measures taken to implement the draft recommendation.

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

Done in Strasbourg on 26 November 2008

---

[1] Decision of the European Parliament of 9 March 1994 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties (94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom), OJ 1994 L 113, p. 15.

[2] Article 15(g) of the Decision concerning the Traineeships for persons with a disability in the Secretariat of the European Parliament reads as follows: "Monitoring and evaluation: Trainees, supervisors and other staff members concerned would be asked to evaluate their experience and their perception of the programme. An assessment would be made at the end of the first traineeship period, by the Traineeship Office, in order for any necessary modifications and improvements to be made."

[3] A certificate issued by the national authorities which provides that the person in question was not convicted for any criminal offences.

[4] In its opinion, Parliament simply mentioned that "the complainant performed various tasks: drafting notes, minor reports and letters; searching for background information and news articles; she attended meetings and provided summaries."

[5] Speaking notes of the High Commissioner at the Lunch Time Briefing during the 2nd session of the Human Rights Council, 25 September 2006, available on the website of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, at the following address: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/disability/speeches.htm.