Dear Ms T.,

On 9 February 2000, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the selection of trainees at the Council.

On 21 March 2000, I forwarded the complaint to the Secretary General of the Council. The Council sent its opinion on 15 June 2000 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. No observations appear to have been received from you.

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:

During the summer 1999, the complainant, a Polish student resident in Germany, applied for training at the Council. In a letter signed by Mr Lieve van den Bossche, Head of Division and Deputy to the Director at Directorate I - Personnel and Administration, she had been informed that the selection of candidates would take place in December 1999 and she would be notified at the beginning of the year 2000. As by the end of January 2000, she had still not received any response from the Council, she tried several times in vain to contact the official in charge of the traineeship office. It was only three weeks after her first attempt that she reached the responsible official by telephone. She was eventually informed that due to the large number of applicants, candidates from Eastern Europe would be excluded from the selection. Regarding the forthcoming enlargement, the complainant considered this decision as inadequate. In her view, the personal qualifications of the candidate should be taken into consideration, instead. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant made the following allegations:

1. The Council failed to notify her of the results of the selection procedure;
2. The decision of the Council to exclude candidates from Central and Eastern European countries from the selection, was discriminating and unfair.

THE INQUIRY

The Council's opinion

In its opinion, the Council made the following comments:

The Council referred to the rules regarding traineeships in force at the General Secretariat of the Council. Accordingly, candidates have to submit their application by 30 September in order to be eligible for a trainee post of three to four months in the following year. The results of the selection process are announced at the beginning of each year.

The complainant was informed of the negative decision by telephone in the first week of February and by letter dated 15 February 2000. The Council regretted that the complainant had encountered difficulties in contacting the official responsible for the traineeships. The Council underlined that the complainant was properly informed of the outcome of the procedure and explained that the delay was caused by the large number of applications (900 for the year 2000).

Concerning the allegation of discriminatory treatment of applicants from Central and Eastern European countries, the Council made clear, that according to its internal rules, in principal both EU Member States and applicant countries would be admitted to the traineeship programme. Nevertheless, the General Secretariat of the Council had the discretionary power to organise its trainee programme. In its view, the programme's primordial aim would be to enable EU-nationals to acquire professional experience within the institutions. Further, as the accession negotiations were conducted at the Council, it would refrain for security purposes from offering traineeships to candidates from applicant countries. On this basis, during ongoing accession negotiations, candidacies from applicant countries were only exceptionally taken into account and would require an agreement with the government of the applicant country in question, which guaranteed the respect of all security concerns.

The Council regretted the negative decision for the complainant and pledged to inform future candidates more promptly about the outcome of selection procedures.

The complainant's observations

The complainant made no observations on the Council's opinion.

THE DECISION

1 The alleged failure to notify the results of the selection procedure

1.1 The complainant alleges that the Council failed to inform her about the outcome of the selection procedure for trainees.

1.2 The Council put forward that the complainant was informed about the negative decision by telephone on the first week of February 2000 and by letter dated 15 February 2000. The Council regrets that the complainant had difficulties in reaching the official in charge of traineeships. The delay in informing the candidates was caused by the high number of applications (900 for the year 2000). However, the Council stressed that the candidate was duly informed about the outcome of the selection procedure.

1.3 The Ombudsman takes into account that the Council regrets the difficulties the complainant faced in contacting the official responsible in order to find out the outcome of the selection procedure. The Council explains in its opinion that the reason for the delay of a month to inform the candidates was the high number of applicants. In the end, the complainant was informed by telephone and by a letter dated 15 February 2000 about the negative decision. The Ombudsman considers that there was some undue delay, but that the Council's explanation is reasonable, and welcomes its willingness to inform future candidates more promptly about the outcome of the selection procedure.

1.4 On the basis of the above, there appears to have been no maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint.

2 The alleged discrimination of applicants from Central and Eastern Europe

2.1 The complainant considers the decision of the Council to exclude candidates from Central and Eastern European countries due to the high number of applications to be discriminating and unfair. In her view, the personal qualifications of the candidate should be taken into consideration, instead.

2.2 In its opinion, the Council explains that although the internal rules in force at the General Secretariat of the Council provide that nationals of EU Member States and applicant countries are both admitted to the traineeship programme, the General Secretariat has a wide discretionary power in organising this programme. The Council points out that accession negotiations were conducted within its premises. During ongoing accession negotiations, it is general policy at the Council to select trainees, for security purposes, primarily among EU-nationals. Candidates from applicant countries are only exceptionally considered. In such cases, an agreement with the government of the applicant country is required to guarantee the respect of all security concerns.

2.3 The Ombudsman notes that, according to the Council's internal rules governing traineeships, candidates from both EU Member States and applicant countries can apply for traineeships at the Council. In line with these rules, the Council admitted candidates from Central and Eastern European countries to apply for traineeships in the year 2000.

2.4 As the numbers of incoming applications (about 900 applications for the year 2000) exceeded the expectations, the Council decided to use its discretionary power by excluding the candidates from Central and Eastern European countries from the ongoing selection procedure.

2.5 It is good administrative behaviour for the administration to act in a consistent way. The fact to exclude applications from Central and Eastern European countries in the middle of an ongoing selection procedure, was inconsistent with the Council's policy to extend its trainee-programme also to candidates from Central and Eastern European countries. This constitutes an instance of maladministration.

2.6 The Ombudsman further considers that it was not appropriate for the Council to refer to security measures in this case with regard to candidates from applicant countries, as this reason was not communicated to the complainant when she was excluded from the procedure.

3 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, it is necessary to make the following critical remark:

It is good administrative behaviour for the administration to act in a consistent way. The fact to exclude applications from Central and Eastern European countries in the middle of an ongoing selection procedure, was inconsistent with the Council's policy to extend its trainee-programme also to candidates from Central and Eastern European countries. This constitutes an instance of maladministration.

Given that this aspect of the case concerns procedures relating to specific events in the past, it is not appropriate to pursue a friendly settlement of the matter. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The Secretary General and High Representative of the Council of the European Union will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN