Dear X,
On 29 January 1998 you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission concerning a decision of the Appointing Authority. By this decision, the Appointing Authority issued a reprimand against you further to a disciplinary procedure initiated by DG IX.
On 5 May 1998, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 3 August 1998 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. On 11 January 1999, I received your observations on the Commission's opinion.
I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the relevant facts were as follows:
The complainant, a former B3 grade Commission official, made on 29 November 1995 an application for the reimbursement of the expenses for the cure of the complainant's spouse. Those expenses covered a cure of 21 days from 6 to 26 August 1995. However, on 2 February 1996, the Director General of DG IX started disciplinary proceedings against the complainant on the basis of the suspicion that the complainant presented a false bill. After having been informed by the hotel which issued the bill, the Illness and Accident Insurance-Unit suspected that the bill presented by the complainant on one single sheet in reality covered two different cure periods, one for both the complainant and spouse, and the other for the spouse only. Also, the bill mentioned prices not corresponding to reality, and services which had not taken place. Moreover, the bill did not mention the reduction from which the complainant had benefited. Further to this disciplinary procedure, the complainant was heard on 14 February 1996 and admitted that the bill of 26 August 1995 covered two bills corresponding to two cure periods. The hotel declared that it was the complainant who had asked for one single bill to be issued. On 11 September 1996, the Appointing Authority finally issued a reprimand against the complainant on the basis of art. 86.2b of the Staff Regulations.
On 5 February 1997, the complainant made an appeal under Article 90.2 of the Staff Regulations asking for the annulment of the decision. The complainant contested the facts and alleged that the decision issuing the reprimand was arbitrary and based on insufficient elements. Contrary to what the Commission stated, the complainant claimed that an application had only been made for reimbursement of the cure of the spouse and never for the complainant. The complainant finally alleged that the report of the hearing of 14 February 1996 had never been received, and that, therefore, the rights of the defence had not been respected.
On 29 September 1997, the Appointing Authority rejected the appeal and confirmed the decision. Therefore, the complainant filed the present complaint with the European Ombudsman. The complainant alleged that a) the rights of the defence had been violated and that b) the decision was arbitrary, because the accusations were not founded.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion
In its opinion, the Commission explained the reasons that led DG IX to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the complainant and to issue the reprimand. The Illness and Accident Insurance-Unit of DG IX suspected that, when the complainant on 29 November 1995 made an application for the reimbursement of the expenses for the cure of the spouse, the complainant presented a false bill. The bill, on the one hand, mentioned prices which did not correspond to the usual prices of the hotel, included services which had never taken place and did not mention the 15% reduction to which Commission officials are entitled. On the other hand, DG IX suspected that the complainant had presented a unique bill in the name of the spouse, which in reality corresponded to two different bills for two different cure periods, one for the complainant and spouse and the second for the spouse only. The hotel informed that the two bills had been put on one single sheet at the request of the complainant. For those reasons, the Director General of DG IX initiated on 2 February 1996 disciplinary proceedings against the complainant.
On 14 February 1996, a hearing took place during which the complainant admitted that the bill of 26 August 1995 corresponded to two different cure periods for the spouse (16-22 April 1995 and 6-19 August 1995). The complainant also stated that it had been the hotel which had proposed to issue one single bill which corresponded to the 21 days of cure period which had been authorised for the spouse. As regards the additional amount and prices of the services which had been included in the bill of 26 August 1995 and in the application for reimbursement, the complainant claimed that they were probably due to a mistake or an omission on the part of the hotel.
Two copies of the minutes of the hearing were sent to the complainant on 23 February 1996, with the request to send back one of them signed. These were followed by two reminders of 22 April and 27 May 1996, the second sent by registered letter but never collected by the complainant. The complainant never sent back a signed copy of the minutes. The decision issuing a reprimand was sent to the complainant by registered letter. For those reasons, the Commission observed that the rights of the defendant had been fully respected.
The complainant made an appeal against this decision alleging that it was not grounded. As regards the argument of the complainant that an application for reimbursement for the complainant had never been made, the Commission stated that the complainant presented a false bill in the name of the spouse only, while it was confirmed by the hotel that at least one of the two periods covered also the complainant's stay in the hotel and that the complainant had asked for one single bill. Having regard to the supporting documents, i.e. the application for reimbursement, the bill presented and the minutes of the hearing, the Appointing Authority confirmed its decision.
The complainant's observations
In observations the complainant maintained the complaint that the rights of defence had been violated and that the decision issuing the reprimand was not grounded.

THE DECISION

1 The alleged violation of the rights of the defence of the complainant
1.1 The complainant alleged that the report of the hearing of 14 February 1996 was never received and that, therefore, the complainant's rights of defence had been violated. The Commission observed that two copies of the minutes of the hearing were sent to the complainant, followed by two reminders, the second of which was sent by registered mail, but that the complainant never went to collect them.
1.2 Article 87.1 of the Staff Regulations provides that the official against whom a reprimand is to be issued shall be heard before such action is taken. In the present case it appears that a hearing took place on 14 February 1996 during which the complainant had the possibility to defend a position and made declarations. It also appears from the Commission's opinion that on 23 February 1996 the minutes of that hearing were sent to the complainant, and that on 22 April and 27 May 1996 two further reminders were sent, the second by registered mail, but that the complainant never went to collect the minutes. The Ombudsman thus notes that the rights of defence of the complainant have been respected in the present disciplinary proceedings. Therefore no maladministration by the Commission was found.
2 The allegation that the decision was not grounded and arbitrary
2.1 The complainant alleged that the decision of 11 September 1996 by which a reprimand was issued was not grounded and arbitrary. The complainant observed that an application for reimbursement of cure expenses for the spouse only and never for the complainant had been made. The Commission stated that it provided the complainant with a complete reasoning which was based on the evidence that had been gathered during the disciplinary proceedings.
2.2 A decision issuing a reprimand against an official should clearly state the reasons on which it is based. In the present case, it appears that the Appointing Authority has based its decision on the evidence which appeared from the application for reimbursement and from the bill presented by the complainant, as well as on the declarations which the complainant made during the hearing. In its decision, the Appointing Authority refers to the fact that the complainant during the hearing admitted that the bill of 26 August 1995 in reality covered two separate bills for two different cure periods. The Appointing Authority also referred to the information obtained from the hotel, according to which it was the complainant who had asked for the hotel to issue one single bill.
2.3 The complainant did not provide evidence to the Ombudsman to contradict the allegations of the Appointing Authority which lead to the reprimand. More particularly, as regards the additional amount and prices of the services included in the bill of 26 August 1995 and in the application for reimbursement, the complainant merely claimed that they were probably due to a mistake or an omission on behalf of the hotel. For the above reasons, the Ombudsman considers that the Appointing Authority has sufficiently stated reasons for its decision to issue a reprimand. The allegation that this decision is not grounded and arbitrary can not be retained, and no maladministration was found with regard to this aspect of the case.
3 Conclusion
On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Commission. The Ombudsman has therefore decided to close the case.
The President of the European Commission will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely
Jacob SÖDERMAN