Meklēt izmeklēšanas

The case concerned the contractual conditions of ‘locally recruited teachers’ (LRTs) in the European Schools. While the European Schools are not an EU institution, the European Commission has an important role in them, as it has a seat on the Board of Governors and is the main contributor to the Schools’ budget.

The Ombudsman inquired into the Commission’s role and actions taken in relation to the contractual situation of LRTs. She noted that most LRTs’ contracts lack stability, as they can be terminated where teachers from the national systems of Member States are seconded to a European School, regardless of the time they have been working for the European Schools.

The Ombudsman considered that, even if the European Schools are only bound by their own rules, the Commission should use its role to ensure, within the limits of its power, that LRTs’ contractual and working conditions are fully in line with EU employment laws and principles.

The Commission has a long term solution for the Schools which it is focused, first and foremost, on implementing. The Ombudsman pointed out that it is of the greatest importance that the Commission closely monitors the implementation of the solution with a view to limiting, as much as possible, the negative impact on LRTs. The Ombudsman trusts that the Commission will take whatever action is needed to address any negative impact and, then, if needed will consider further improvements to the LRTs’ working conditions.

In light of this, the Ombudsman considered that no further inquiries are justified at this stage and closed the case.

The case concerned the refusal by the European Commission to grant a staff member with a child with a disability a ‘double dependent child allowance’, which is provided for under the EU Staff Regulations for assisting with the care of children with disabilities. The Commission based its decision on internal rules agreed by the EU administration concerning the allowance, according to which children whose disabilities are deemed to be below a certain threshold are not considered eligible.

The Ombudsman took the view that using thresholds on the degree of disability to exclude certain children with disabilities automatically is at odds with the relevant provision in the Staff Regulations. The allowance is intended to cover cases involving ‘heavy expenditure’, and the Staff Regulations make no reference to the degree of disability. In addition, while setting thresholds on the degree of disability to determine eligibility for financial support may make matters more straightforward and predictable from an administrative perspective, it seems to be at odds with the EU administration’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD).

In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman made a solution proposal to the Commission that it initiate the process to review the applicable rules, which will involve the other EU institutions. She also urged the Commission to reassess the complainant’s request for the double dependent child allowance, taking into account the above finding, that is, not rejecting it solely because of the degree of disability that his child has been deemed to have. As the process to revise the applicable rules may take some time, and to guarantee equal treatment, the Ombudsman also urged the Commission to take this inquiry into account when considering all pending and future requests for the double dependent child allowance. This implies assessing each application for the double dependent child allowance on a case-by-case basis, and not excluding any applications merely because the child’s disability is considered to be below a certain threshold.

In response to the solution proposal, the Commission has initiated a process to review the rules setting out the threshold approach, which could lead to their revision. The Ombudsman welcomes that the Commission has acted on this aspect of her solution proposal.

However, the Commission also stated that it would await the outcome of this process before reassessing the complainant’s request or other requests. Given that this may take some time, and given the findings of this inquiry, the Ombudsman remains dissatisfied on this aspect of the case. She asks the Commission once again to consider applying the rules more flexibly for requests from now on. The Ombudsman remains convinced that the rules in question should have been revised much sooner to give effect to the commitments the EU signed up to. The Ombudsman therefore asks the Commission to follow up within three months and intends to revisit the matter if the outcome of the revision is not appropriate or is taking too long. The Ombudsman will also draw the attention of the other institutions to her findings.

 

The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessed the education and professional experience of a candidate in a selection procedure for recruiting EU staff in the field of agriculture.

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s qualifications and, therefore, closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) not to allow a candidate, who was placed in COVID-19 quarantine, to reschedule her test in the context of a selection procedure for contract agent staff (CAST Permanent selection procedure).

The Ombudsman found that EPSO provided reasonable explanations as to why it was not able to provide an alternative testing date to the complainant. On that basis, the Ombudsman closed the inquiry with a finding that there was no maladministration by EPSO.