Dear Mrs K.,
On 26 May 1998, you lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman concerning the refusal of the European Parliament to accept your application to participate in an internal competition of the European Parliament.
On 29 July 1998, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Parliament. The European Parliament sent its opinion on 20 October 1998 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. I received your reply on 28 December 1998.
I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

Since October 1991, the complainant has been employed in Strasbourg as a temporary agent by the Council of Europe. In the framework of her working contract with the Council of Europe, she works at the reception for visitors of the European Parliament and the Council of Europe. During 12 weeks a year, when the plenary sessions of the European Parliament are held in Strasbourg, she is at the disposal of Directorate General III (Visits and Seminars division) of the General Secretariat of the European Parliament.
In March 1998, the complainant sent an application to attend an internal competition (C/347) organised by the European Parliament. Her application was rejected because she was not considered as being part of the staff of the European Parliament. The complainant asked for a reexamination of her application, stressing that even though her working contract was concluded with the Council of Europe, she was effectively working for the European Parliament. Eventually, the rejection was confirmed on 13 May 1998.
Having worked for almost seven years for the European Parliament, the complainant refuses to accept that the selection board rejects her application for the aforementioned internal competition.

THE INQUIRY

The European Parliament's opinion
The European Parliament notes that the complainant's application was rejected on 2 April 1998, and that this rejection was confirmed on 13 May 1998.
The Institution highlighted that the refusal to accept the complainant's candidature for internal competition C/347 was based on the fact that on the closing date for the receipt of applications the complainant was not among the staff of the European Parliament. Moreover, the complainant, unlike what she declared, was not employed by the European Parliament but had a binding contract with the Council of Europe.
Since the premises of the European Parliament and the Council of Europe in Strasbourg are common, the two organisations do have common programs for visitors but this does not modify the statute under which the complainant was employed. Accordingly, the complainant was still employed by the Council of Europe. The General Secretariat of the European Parliament had never contracted her, nor did she ever hold any post in the Parliament's organisation chart.
The complainant's observations
The complainant informed the European Ombudsman that she did not wish to comment on the European Parliament's opinion.

THE DECISION

1. The refused access to an internal competition
1.1 The complainant claims to have worked for the European Parliament for seven years. Nevertheless, the European Parliament has refused her access to an internal competition (C/347) because she was not considered a member of the European Parliament's staff.
1.2 The Parliament stated that even though the complainant has worked for common programmes organised by the Council of Europe and the European Parliament, she was officially contracted by the Council of Europe. Thus she could not be considered as being part of the staff of the European Parliament.
1.3 The Ombudsman notes that from a statutory point of view, despite her occasional working for the European Parliament, the complainant was contracted by the Council of Europe. She was not, as requested by the notice of competition, among the officials and other agents of the European Communities employed by the General Secretariat or the secretariat of the political groups of the European Parliament. As a consequence, the European Parliament, by refusing the complainant's application for internal competition C/347, has applied the criteria set out in the notice of competition.
2. Conclusion
On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Parliament. The Ombudsman has therefore decided to close the case.
The President of the European Parliament will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely,
Jacob SÖDERMAN