Dear Mrs H.,

In December 2001 and again in March 2002, you complained to the European Ombudsman concerning your social security position following divorce from a Commission official. These complaints were declared inadmissible(1). On 8 July 2002, you wrote to the Ombudsman asking him to re-consider the admissibility of your complaint. This letter was registered as 1320/2002/IJH.

On 22 July 2002, I informed you that I had begun a careful review of the nature of your complaint and its admissibility and asked you to forward to me copies of all your correspondence with the Commission. On 29 July 2002, you replied and the following day sent a further letter containing additional information about your complaint.

On 30 August 2002, I forwarded your complaint to the President of the Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 29 November 2002. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 15 January 2003.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant stated that she was married for more than 20 years, during 15 of which her husband worked as an official of the European Commission. Following her divorce in Belgium in April 2001, the complainant sought advice from the Commission concerning her social security rights, especially her pension rights. The Commission informed her that no transfer of pension rights to a divorced spouse is possible and that she will obtain pension rights only on her husband’s death.

According to the complainant, British law would give her the right to half the pension accrued during the marriage and this half should be ear-marked and fenced off. Germany, where the complainant now resides, has a similar law. As an unmarried British citizen, however, the complainant has no rights under German law.

Also according to the complainant, the families of Commission officials believe that they are covered and cared for in what should be the most advanced and modern of schemes in Europe and it is a shock to discover that this is not so. The complainant argues that it cannot be acceptable that the Commission creates their own rules that are not in line with current modern national laws and modern thinking and which do not make adequate provision for families.

The complainant alleges that the Commission failed to provide her at any stage with adequate information about her social security position and that the EU social security system is not in line with modern national laws because it only looks after the official concerned and does not take any real care of their families. The complainant claims pension rights from the Commission and that the Commission should provide direct access to advice and information for people in her position.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

The Commission’s opinion acknowledges the fact that the present and future rights of a divorced wife to a part of her ex-husband’s retirement pension do not affect allocation of the old age pension and that the Commission does not transfer partial pension rights if they are split in the event of a divorce. The Staff Regulations provide for pension rights to be granted to a divorced wife only on the husband’s death under the conditions laid down in Articles 27 and 28 of Annex VIII.

As regards the alleged lack of information and advice, the Commission stated that the complainant has the right to contact the Commission services at any time in order to request information. Following an exchange of letters with Commission Vice-President Neil Kinnock, the complainant contacted the Commission services by letter on 5 March 2002 and received a detailed reply by letter dated 11 March 2002. The Commission annexed copies of this correspondence to its opinion.

The complainant's observations

The complainant was invited to submit observations on the Commission’s opinion. In reply, the complainant sent a letter of four pages which included a new allegation that the European Schools failed to provide her with reports concerning her three children and that she had received abuse from a deputy headmaster of one school for having sought the help of Commissioner Neil Kinnock on the matter.

Amongst the other points made by the complainant were, in summary, the following:

This is a vital case involving discrimination and denial of human rights, affecting many hundreds of men and women.

It is national laws, not the EU Staff Regulations, which deal with divorce and maintenance. However, the Staff Regulations contain rules about pensions which prevent the complainant from exercising her rights under national law. The complainant only found out the true situation at the time of the divorce.

Most EU countries have modernised their divorce laws on a no-blame basis and have formalised the splitting of the pension without discrimination so that none is left out and no-one is punished and left with nothing. There is no reason why the EU cannot pay a capital sum equivalent to the pension accrued and then have no more obligation to include the spouse in their pension scheme.

The complainant concluded by requesting the Ombudsman to give a clear signal that it is now time to modernise the system and to give her help and concrete information to establish her pension rights.

THE DECISION

1 Preliminary remark

1.1 In her observations on the Commission’s opinion, the complainant made a new allegation that the European Schools failed to provide her with reports concerning her three children and that she had received abuse from a deputy headmaster of one school for having sought the help of Commissioner Neil Kinnock on the matter.

1.2 The Ombudsman considers that it would be appropriate for the complainant to make administrative approaches to the Commission concerning this matter, in accordance with Article 2 (4) of the Statute of the Ombudsman, before making a complaint to the European Ombudsman. In this context, the Ombudsman considers it useful to point out that, on 10 December 2002, he made a draft recommendation in another case (0845/2002/IJH) that the Commission should recognise its responsibility to promote good administration by the European Schools and outline concrete measures which it will take to fulfil that responsibility in the future.

2 Social security rights of the divorced spouse of a Commission official

2.1 The complainant alleges that the Commission failed to provide her at any stage with adequate information about her social security position and that the EU social security system is not in line with modern national laws because it only looks after the official concerned and does not take any real care of their families. The complainant claims pension rights from the Commission and that the Commission should provide direct access to advice and information for people in her position.

2.2 The Commission acknowledges that it does not transfer partial pension rights if they are split in the event of a divorce and argues that the Staff Regulations provide for pension rights to be granted to a divorced wife only on the husband’s death under the conditions laid down in Articles 27 and 28 of Annex VIII. The Commission also stated that the complainant has the right to contact its services at any time in order to request information. The complainant contacted the Commission by letter on 5 March 2002 and received a detailed reply by letter dated 11 March 2002.

2.3 The Ombudsman notes that Article 27 of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations refers to cases where the divorced wife of an official or a former official is entitled to receive maintenance from him, on her own account, by virtue of a court order, or as the result of a settlement. In such cases and subject to certain other conditions, the divorced wife is entitled to a survivor's pension on the death of her former husband. Article 28 deals with cases where more than one divorced wife, or one or more divorced wives and a widow, are entitled to a survivor's pension.

The Ombudsman is not aware of any provision that would require, or entitle, the Commission to accept a claim by the complainant for pension rights, other than in accordance with the Staff Regulations. Moreover, the Ombudsman’s inquiry has not revealed any information to show that the Commission has wrongly advised the complainant concerning the application of the Staff Regulations to her case, or that it has failed to provide advice and information to the complainant, or to others in a similar situation, when requested to do so.

For these reasons, the Ombudsman considers that his inquiry has revealed no maladministration by the Commission.

2.4 The Ombudsman points out that the complainant has the right to petition the European Parliament for reform of the Staff Regulations to allow or require pension sharing in the event of divorce of an official or former official. A leaflet concerning the right to petition is enclosed with this decision.

3 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the Commission. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

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

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN

Enclosure: leaflet on the right to petition.

---

(1) 1763/2001/AT and 0733/2002/AT.