Strasbourg, 18 December 2006

Dear Ms R.,

On 14 July 2005, you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission concerning the rejection of your application for in-service training at the Commission.

On 23 September 2005, I forwarded your complaint to the Commission and asked it to submit an opinion. The Commission sent its opinion on 6 January 2006. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations. No observations have been received from you.

By letter of 8 June 2006, I informed you that, after a preliminary examination of your complaint file, it seemed that further inquiries were not necessary.

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

THE COMPLAINT

On 25 February 2005, the complainant applied for in-service training at the Commission for the period starting on 1 October 2005 and ending on 28 February 2006.

By e-mail of 29 March 2005, the Head of the Commission's Traineeships Office informed the complainant of the rejection of her application on the ground that she had already benefited from an in-service traineeship or employment at the Commission or in another European institution or body.

By letter of 11 April 2005, sent to the Head of the Commission's Traineeships Office by e-mail, fax and normal post, the complainant asked for review of her application and for reconsideration of the above decision rejecting that application. The complainant's reasons were the following:

1. although she stated, under "Professional experience" in her application, that she had been voluntarily working as an assistant of a MEP since October 2004, she did not hold any contract or sign any formal agreement with the MEP concerned or the European Parliament that could be defined as an "in-service traineeship or employment";
2. probably the notion "internship at the EP" used by the complainant under the heading "Studies or publications on European topics" of her application had caused a misunderstanding during the examination of her application.

On 14 July 2005, the complainant submitted her complaint to the European Ombudsman. She alleged (i) that the Commission unfairly rejected her application for in-service training and (ii) failed to answer her letter of 11 April 2005. She claimed that the Commission should review her application and reconsider its decision rejecting that application.

THE INQUIRY

The opinion of the Commission

The Ombudsman forwarded the complaint to the Commission and asked it to submit an opinion.

The Commission's opinion can be summarised as follows:

The Commission referred to the "Rules governing in-service training with the Commission of the European Communities"(1) (the "Rules"), which were applicable to the examination of the complainant's application and of which it attached a copy. According to Article 8 of the Rules, "[i]n-service training is open to candidates who have not already benefited from in-service training in another European institution or body (...)"

The Commission explained that the aim of in-service training is to give trainees a general idea of the objectives and problems of European integration and to enable them to acquire practical knowledge of the workings of the institutions.

The Commission also explained that the purpose of the above provision is to offer this opportunity to as many candidates as possible, and added that for this reason, it had always offered in-service training only to candidates who have not already benefited from in-service training in another European institution or body. In this context, the Commission pointed out that it receives annually some 15,000 applications whereas its budgetary and capacity constraints only allow an intake of 1,200 trainees a year.

As regards the complainant's application, the Commission referred to the heading "Professional experience" where the complainant described her voluntary work as:

"MEP assistant, attend political group meetings and activities, following reports and latest issues discussed in the Committee of Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and Petition Committee, taking care of political agenda and MEP public relations."

The Commission also referred to a letter, submitted by the complainant as part of her application, in which the MEP concerned requested a "service card" from 15 October 2004 until 31 July 2005 for her "stagiaire".

It was on the basis of the above elements that the Commission's Traineeships Office concluded that the complainant had been a trainee in the European Parliament.

The Commission added that, even if the complainant did not hold any contract or sign any formal agreement with the MEP, the fact remains that she had actually worked, in the past months, in a European institution and has, therefore, had the possibility to acquire knowledge of the workings of the European institutions, which is the purpose of the training offered by the Commission. Therefore, the Commission maintained its position that the complainant's application was not eligible, and concluded that it does not intend to revise its decision concerning that application.

Relatedly, the Commission noted that, in point 2.3. of the new "Rules governing the official traineeships scheme of the European Commission"(2) (the "New Rules"), the criteria set in Article 8 of the Rules were further clarified as follows:

"The European Commission wishes to offer to as many people as possible the opportunity of in-service training. Therefore applications will not be accepted from candidates who – for more than six weeks:

- have already benefited or benefit from any kind of in-service training (formal or informal, paid or unpaid) within a European institution or body (...), or

- who have had or have any kind of employment within a European institution or body (...),

including anyone who is or has been an assistant to a Member of the European Parliament, an intra-muros consultant or researcher, a temporary staff member, a contract staff member, an auxiliary staff member or an interim staff member of any EU institution, body, delegation or representative office."

As regards the alleged failure to reply to the complainant's letter of 11 April 2005, the Commission acknowledged that it should have answered it in writing and apologised for not having done so. The Commission also noted that, although it did not answer the letter in writing, it had been in contact with the complainant several times, both before and after 11 April 2005, and had given her all the clarifications outlined above.

The complainant's observations

The complainant did not submit any observations.

THE DECISION

1 Alleged unfair rejection of the complainant's application and related claim

1.1 The complainant alleged that the Commission unfairly rejected her application for in-service training. She claimed that the Commission should review her application and reconsider its decision rejecting that application.

1.2 The Commission explained that it rejected the complainant's application on the basis of Article 8 of the "Rules governing in-service training with the Commission of the European Communities"(3) (the "Rules"), according to which in-service training is only open to candidates who have not already benefited from in-service training in another European institution or body.

The Commission clarified that the rationale of the above provision is to offer the opportunity of in-service training to as many candidates as possible, and explained that the aim of in-service training is to give trainees a general idea of the objectives and problems of the European integration as well as to enable them to acquire practical knowledge of the workings of the EU institutions. The Commission also noted that it receives annually some 15,000 applications whereas its budgetary and capacity constraints only allow an intake of 1,200 trainees a year.

As regards the complainant's situation, the Commission referred to (i) statements she made in her application concerning her voluntary work as the assistant of an MEP and (ii) a letter from the MEP concerned (submitted by the complainant as part of her application to the Commission), which described the complainant as the MEP’s “stagiaire” (trainee). These elements led the Commission to form the view that the complainant had been a trainee in the European Parliament and was thus not eligible for in-service training at the Commission.

In addition, the Commission took the view that, even if the complainant did not hold any contract or sign any formal agreement with the MEP concerned, she had actually worked in an EU institution, and had, therefore, a possibility to acquire knowledge of the workings of the EU institutions.

The Commission therefore declined to revise its decision concerning the ineligibility of the complainant's application.

1.3 The Ombudsman first recalls that every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions and bodies of the Union.

The Ombudsman also considers it useful to point out that each of the 15,000 people who apply to the Commission for in-service training each year is, by definition, interested in active participation in the European project. Such applications therefore represent a valuable opportunity for the Commission. A further remark on this subject will be made below.

1.4 The Ombudsman notes that, according to Article 8 of the Rules, "[i]n-service training is open to candidates who have not already benefited from in-service training in another European institution or body (...)"

The Ombudsman takes the view that the Commission has offered a convincing explanation of the purpose of this provision.

The Ombudsman also notes that, as pointed out by the Commission, under "Professional experience" in her application, the complainant indeed referred to her voluntary work as the assistant of an MEP. Moreover, the Ombudsman notes the complainant's statements that, during her internship at the European Parliament, she had been studying its political activities from inside as well as following its policies and procedures(4), and that she could benefit from her experience at the European Parliament in order to contribute to EU projects and activities(5).

In light of the above, the Ombudsman considers reasonable the Commission's argument that, even if the complainant did not hold any contract or sign any formal agreement with the MEP, she had actually worked in a EU institution and has, therefore, had the possibility to acquire the relevant experience.

1.5 On the basis of the above, the Ombudsman does not consider that the Commission's interpretation of its Rules, or its application of those Rules to the situation of the complainant in the present case, is unfair.

1.6 The Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration by the Commission. The complainant’s claim therefore cannot be sustained.

2 Alleged failure to reply to the complainant's letter

2.1 The complainant alleged that the Commission failed to answer her letter of 11 April 2005.

2.2 The Commission acknowledged that it should have answered that letter in writing and apologised for not having done so.

2.3 The Ombudsman welcomes the Commission's apology for not having answered the complainant's letter in writing. The Ombudsman therefore considers it unnecessary to pursue his inquiry into this aspect of the complaint.

3 Conclusion

On the basis of his inquiries into this complaint, the Ombudsman concludes that there is no maladministration as regards the complainant’s first allegation and her claim and that it is unnecessary to pursue his inquiry into the second allegation. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The President of the Commission will be informed of this decision.

Further Remark

The 15,000 people who apply to the Commission for in-service training each year are, by definition, interested in active participation in the European project. Such applications could therefore represent a valuable opportunity for the Commission in the context of its “long-term plan to reinvigorate European democracy and help the emergence of a European public sphere, where citizens are given the information and the tools to actively participate in the decision making process and gain ownership of the European project”(6). The Ombudsman therefore suggests that the Commission could usefully examine whether it could communicate more effectively with all applicants for in-service training, including those whose applications are not successful.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) Commission Decision of 7 July 1997.

(2) Commission Decision C(2005)458 of 2 March 2005.

(3) Commission Decision of 7 July 1997.

(4) Heading "Studies or publications on European topics" of the application.

(5) Heading "Motivation for applying" of the application.

(6) "Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions - The Commission’s contribution to the period of reflection and beyond: Plan-D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate", 13 October 2005, COM(2005) 494 final, page 2.