Strasbourg, 29 November 2006

Dear Ms A.,

On 29 December 2005, you lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman against the European Commission. The complaint concerned the refusal, by the day nursery of the "Early Childhood Centre" ("CPE"(1)) in Luxembourg, of your application for the admission of your child.

On 9 January 2006, you sent me further information.

On 3 February 2006, I informed the President of the Commission of your complaint and asked him to submit an opinion by 31 May 2006.

On 19 May 2006, the Commission sent its opinion in French. On 2 June 2006, the Commission sent a translation of this opinion into Spanish, which was forwarded to you on 12 June 2006, with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. No written observations were received from you. On 5 September 2006, my services contacted you by telephone.

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

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the facts of the case are, in summary, as follows:

The complainant is the mother of two children who, during the school year 2004-2005, had been enrolled in the "Early Childhood Centre", ("CPE"(2)) in Luxembourg ("the CPE day nursery"). As the complainant became unemployed, her children could not attend the centre at the beginning of the school year 2005-2006, that is in September 2005, since, according to the CPE's internal regulations, when one of the parents is unemployed, their children do not have priority to be admitted to the centre.

The complainant was offered a new full-time contract beginning on 15 January 2006. In view of this change of circumstances, and as one of the parents was an EU official, the complainant submitted an application to the CPE in mid-December 2005 to have one of her children admitted to the CPE day nursery as from 16 January 2006. The complainant was then asked to submit a complete file with a number of additional documents, including her work contract.

On 22 December 2005, the CPE turned down her application on the grounds that there were no places available, because of the high number of children who had had to be admitted following the recent accession of the new Member States to the European Union.

The complainant pointed out that, one month earlier, she had submitted the application for her child and she had been informed that places remained available. The complainant noted that the CPE day nursery was the only service which could cater for her children during working hours, as the "maternity section" of the European School closed each working day at midday, except for Mondays.

The complainant noted that the child had been included on a waiting list and that the CPE staff had scheduled a meeting with the European Commission's services to find an interim solution. The complainant also expressed the view that the Commission's policy to give priority for access to the day nursery to the children coming from the new EU Member States was discriminatory.

The allegations and claims on which the Ombudsman asked the Commission to submit an opinion were the following:

The complainant alleged, in summary, that the Commission, in its role as the institution in charge of the administration of the CPE day nursery in Luxembourg, had failed to adequately foresee the needs of the CPE day nursery in view of the accession of the ten new Member States. As a result, her child had been refused admission to the nursery.

She claimed that her child should be accepted in the CPE day nursery and that the Commission should take the necessary steps to ensure that the nursery could cater to the current needs of the families of EU staff.

THE INQUIRY

The opinion of the Commission

In its opinion, the Commission first described the facts of the case and the complainant's allegations and claims.

The Commission explained that the CPE day nursery was managed by the Commission's Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Luxembourg. It noted that, on 22 December 2005, the complainant had been informed that the application for her child to attend the CPE day nursery as from 16 January 2006 had been included on a waiting list.

The Commission explained that, on 9 January 2006, the CPE day nursery's managing service had telephoned the complainant to inform her that the CPE day nursery was able to grant her request and admit her child to a Spanish-speaking group. The Commission confirmed that, on 16 January 2006, the complainant's child was admitted to the CPE day nursery and that he was effectively attending the nursery.

The Commission therefore argued that it had acted properly, since its services had correctly applied the "Rules on Admission to and Operation of the CPE Establishments" ("the CPE Rules"), a copy of which it included in its opinion(3).

As regards the forecast of the CPE's needs, the Commission explained that a new building, planned years ago and recently constructed by the State of Luxembourg, would be available as from the school year 2006-2007. In the Commission's view, this new building would contribute to solving potential problems related to waiting lists for attending the CPE facilities.

The Commission concluded that it had fully respected the applicable rules and procedures in this case. Furthermore, the Commission noted that the subject-matter of the complaint had been solved, since the complainant's child had been finally admitted to the CPE day nursery, in accordance with the complainant's request.

The complainant's observations

The Ombudsman did not receive any written observations from the complainant.

On 5 September 2006, the Ombudsman's services telephoned the complainant in order to ascertain whether she was satisfied with the actions taken by the Commission in reply to her complaint. The complainant confirmed that her child had been admitted to the CPE day nursery as from 16 January 2006. She informed the Ombudsman that she considered the problem settled by the Commission.

THE DECISION

1 Capacity of the day nursery at the "Early Childhood Centre"(CPE)(4)

1.1 The complainant alleges, in summary, that the European Commission, in its role as the institution in charge of the administration of the day nursery at the "Early Childhood Centre" in Luxembourg ("the CPE day nursery"), failed to adequately foresee the needs of the CPE day nursery in view of the accession of the ten new Member States. Relatedly, she claims that the Commission should take the necessary steps to ensure that the CPE day nursery can cater to the current needs of the families of the EU staff.

The complainant points out that her application to the CPE day nursery was rejected on the grounds that, as a result of the high number of children who had to be admitted following the recent accession of the new Member States to the European Union, there were no more places available. The complainant expresses the view that the Commission had a policy to give priority to children coming from the new EU Member States for access to the day nursery and that this was discriminatory.

1.2. In its opinion, the Commission argues that a new building, planned years ago and recently constructed by the State of Luxembourg, will be available for the school year 2006-2007. In the Commission's view, this new building should contribute to solving potential problems related to waiting lists for attending the CPE's facilities.

1.3 The Ombudsman notes that the CPE, according to its own rules(5), aims to provide easy access to child care facilities for parents from the different EU Member States who leave their country of origin and come to Luxembourg. Moreover, the CPE is made up of the Crèche, the "Garderie" (day nursery for older infants), and the Supervised Study and Recreation Centre.

1.4 The Ombudsman also notes that the Commission has undertaken to solve the problem of the CPE's capacity in the near future through the new CPE facilities which should be in place for the school year 2006-2007. The Ombudsman considers that the Commission appears to have taken adequate steps to ensure that the CPE capacity problems should be solved in the near future.

1.5 The Ombudsman considers that the reason given to the complainant for the rejection of her application for a place at the CPE day nursery does not necessarily imply that priority was given to children from the new Member States. In the Ombudsman’s view, the reason given could be an explanation for the overall increase in the numbers of children attending the nursery and the consequent overall shortage of places. Moreover, the Ombudsman's inquiry has revealed no evidence of discrimination.

1.6 In light of the above, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration as regards the complainant's allegation.

As regards the complainant's claim that the Commission should take the necessary steps to ensure that the CPE nursery could cater to the current needs of the families of EU staff, the Ombudsman considers that, in light of the above findings, in particular taking into account the Commission's undertaking, there is no need to pursue this matter further.

2 The claim that the complainant's child should be admitted to the CPE day nursery

2.1 The complainant claims that her child should be accepted in the CPE day nursery.

The complainant argues that, as both parents, one of whom is an EU official, would be working full-time, they had priority in having their children admitted, according to the "Rules on Admission to and Operation of the CPE Establishments" ("the CPE Rules").

2.2 In its opinion, the Commission explains that, although initially the complainant had been informed that her child's application had been put on a waiting list, subsequently, on 9 January 2006, the CPE day nursery's managing service admitted the child as from 16 January 2006, as she had requested, and informed her of that decision. Therefore, the Commission argues that it has correctly applied the CPE Rules and that it has acted properly in this case.

2.3 Having informally contacted the complainant on 5 September 2006, the Ombudsman notes that she appeared to be satisfied with the Commission's efforts. The Ombudsman therefore concludes that the Commission has taken the necessary action to settle this aspect of the case and has thereby satisfied the complainant's claim.

Conclusion

On the basis of his inquiries into the complainant's first allegation, the Ombudsman finds that there is no maladministration. In the light of this finding, there is no need to pursue the related claim.

As regards the complainant's second claim, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission has taken steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied the complainant. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The Ombudsman will send a copy of this decision to the President of the Commission.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) French abbreviation of "Centre Polyvalent de l'Enfance".

(2) French abbreviation of "Centre Polyvalent de l'Enfance".

(3) The Commission explained that the CPE rules had been fixed by a committee composed both of representatives of the administration of the EU institutions based in Luxembourg and of the staff representatives of these institutions.

(4) French abbreviation of "Centre Polyvalent de l'Enfance".

(5) CPE's Rules on Admission to and Operation of the CPE Establishments ("CPE Rules").