Strasbourg, 26 June 2008

Dear Ms T.,

On 21 May 2007, you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Economic and Social Committee ("EESC") concerning the handling of your traineeship application.

On 4 July 2007, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the EESC. The EESC sent its opinion on 2 October 2007 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished, by 15 November 2007. No written observations have been received from you. However, you provided certain comments on the occasion of a telephone conversation with my Office, which took place on 29 May 2008.

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 are, in summary, as follows:

The complainant, a Bulgarian national, applied for a traineeship at the European Economic and Social Committee ("EESC") and was included in the reserve list for the traineeship period starting in spring 2007. On 5 March 2007, she was contacted by telephone by an EESC official who was responsible for traineeship applications. The official informed the complainant that there was a vacancy in the above traineeship programme and asked whether she was ready to accept this post. He further explained that the urgency of the situation required that she should answer immediately and that she should arrive in Brussels on 19 March 2007. One hour later, the complainant telephoned the EESC official and confirmed that she would accept the position and enrol in the traineeship programme. The EESC official then indicated that details concerning her contract, arrival and reimbursement were going to be further discussed via e-mail.

The complainant immediately asked her employer to accept this move and booked her flight to Brussels. Since the complainant received no further e-mails from the official concerned, she telephoned him on 8 March 2007. On this occasion, the official concerned informed her that he had received several e-mails from her in which she had indicated that she would not be able to participate in the programme, thus rejecting the offer. The complainant stated that she had never sent these e-mails. She asked the EESC official during this telephone conversation to forward to her, by e-mail, the messages that had been sent in her name by e-mail. However, these messages were only sent to her by fax.

The complainant admitted that the relevant e-mail messages had been sent using her yahoo identity and had also been signed with her name and surname. However, she reiterated that she did not send these messages and that there must have been an unauthorised access to her Internet mailbox. The complainant expressed disappointment about the fact that she had not been contacted by telephone, especially in view of the contradictory information concerning her participation in the training programme.

In an attempt to clarify the matter, the complainant requested that the EESC official provide her with contact details of other officials whom she could contact in order to obtain an explanation, but was informed that there was no one else responsible for this matter.

On 9 March 2007, the complainant submitted a complaint to the EESC, by addressing two separate letters with identical content to the Head of Unit of the Recruitment service and to the EESC Director. These letters were sent by fax and via e-mail, as the complainant had found the relevant contact information on the EESC website. However, she received no feedback from the persons to whom this complaint was addressed.

On 12 March 2007, the complainant was informed by the EESC official concerned that her complaint had been forwarded to him for a reply. The official concerned replied to that complaint with a letter sent by fax, in which he explained how the recruitment of trainees was organised at the EESC and analysed the correspondence between the EESC and the complainant. He pointed out that, since the complainant had sent three negative responses concerning the possibility for a traineeship via e-mail, the selection procedure had been stopped at the information stage, that is, before the EESC and the complainant had reached a legally binding agreement. In the same letter, the official concerned understood that the complainant's first reaction had been negative but that she had changed her mind when she was informed that her application would not automatically be renewed for the next traineeship period starting in September 2007.

Following this reply, the complainant sent a second complaint to the Head of Unit (which was not dated), in which she noted that the response which she had received to her first complaint had been provided by the very same official against whom she wished to complain. She reiterated that the only two e-mails she had sent to the EESC were designed to confirm her readiness to accept the traineeship. In this second complaint to the Head of Unit and in her complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant submitted that she was very well aware of the procedures for a traineeship at the Community institutions and stressed that she had never written any e-mails to the admissions officer, asking him to reserve a place for her for the next stage period or declining the offer for the current training period. The complainant also noted that she had lodged a complaint with the Regional Prosecutor's Office in Sofia against an unknown perpetrator, alleging that her identity has been used by another person. Her second complaint was also accompanied by a letter of support from her employer and a copy of the details concerning the flight reservation she had made. According to the complainant, no reply had been given to this second complaint.

In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant submitted the following allegations:

(1) The EESC failed to handle the complainant's traineeship application case properly. The complainant argues that after receiving conflicting information concerning her participation in the traineeship, the EESC should have contacted her by telephone, so as to receive personal clarification on the matter.

(2) The EESC Traineeship Office complaints procedure is not adequate. The complainant alleges that she had not been given information as regards whom she could address her complaint to. In particular, the complainant states that the person she had complained against replied on behalf of his superior and that the EESC failed to reply to her second complaint.

The complainant claimed that:

(1) The EESC should provide the complainant with an explanation as to why her complaint was answered by the very official against whom she complained. The EESC should also provide a reply to the complainant's second complaint.

(2) The EESC should send to the complainant electronically all e-mails that have allegedly been received from her, as the complainant believes this will help her find out if there has been any unauthorised access to her Internet mailbox.

THE INQUIRY

The EESC's opinion

As regards the first allegation, the EESC explained that, following an unexpected vacancy for the traineeship programme in question, the complainant was contacted on 5 March 2007 by the EESC Traineeship Office on a purely informative basis in order to ascertain whether she might be interested in accepting this vacancy. The responsible official indicated that he would send her an offer by e-mail. The use of the e-mail when communicating with potential trainees on the reserve list is a current practice at the EESC, as it allows trainees to communicate quickly and easily with the EESC Traineeship Office at hours that suit them and at low cost. The complainant replied by e-mail on the same day declining the offer. Given that the complainant also declared that she had changed her mind about the traineeship, the content of her e-mails had not given rise to any doubts as to their authenticity. The complainant's e-mails were answered without undue delay and before the official in charge had a chance to contact her by telephone, the complainant herself telephoned him on 8 March 2007. On the same day, and in order to resolve the confusion, the official concerned sent a copy of the relevant e-mails to the complainant by fax. In view of the above, the EESC took the view that the complainant's application for a traineeship had been managed correctly and that it could not be held accountable for any potential failure on the part of the complainant to safeguard access to her e-mail account.

As regards the second allegation and its related first claim, the EESC pointed out that, following her first complaint to the EESC on 9 March 2007, an EESC admissions officer replied to the complainant on 12 March 2007. In that reply the officer stated that her complaint had been passed on to him by the Head of Unit of the Recruitment Service. This reply was signed by the admissions officer, but was sent on the instructions of the Head of Unit. The complainant sent a second complaint on 24 March 2007. In the view of the EESC, this further complaint contained no new relevant facts compared to the first one. Therefore, in view of the previous reply, a second reply did not seem necessary at the time. However, after having received the present complaint to the Ombudsman, the EESC acknowledged that it would have been preferable had the complainant received a reply to her second complaint by the admissions officer's superior. The EESC pointed out that, in the future, every effort would be made to ensure that all such correspondence be given an appropriate reply and that any complaint regarding the Traineeship Office would be handled by the Head of Unit. The EESC added that it had in the meantime written to the complainant in order to apologise to her for the misunderstanding concerning her traineeship application.

As regards the second claim, the EESC noted that copies of all the e-mails that had been received by the complainant had in the meantime been sent to her electronically.

The complainant's observations

No written observations were received from the complainant. However, on the occasion of a telephone conversation with the Ombudsman's Office on 28 May 2008, she pointed out that she was satisfied with the way in which the EESC had dealt with her complaint in so far as it related to its complaints procedure. She stated, however, that she was still not able to understand why the EESC had not, in view of the circumstances of her case, telephoned her in order to clarify the matter. The complainant further noted that the complaint she had lodged with the Regional Prosecutor's Office in Sofia had now been transferred for investigation to the specialised law enforcement authorities dealing with organised crime and computer crimes in Bulgaria.

THE DECISION

1 As regards the complainant's e-mails

1.1 The complainant, a Bulgarian national, applied for a traineeship at the European Economic and Social Committee ("EESC"). On 5 March 2007, the EESC Traineeship Office contacted her by telephone in order to ascertain whether she would be interested to fill in a vacancy in the traineeship programme starting in spring 2007. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant explained that she informed the EESC Traineeship by telephone shortly afterwards that she was willing to accept the post. The complainant further explained that she had begun making arrangements for her journey to Brussels while she was waiting to receive further information from the EESC. According to the complainant, however, she did not receive any follow-up from the EESC Traineeship Office. On 8 March 2007, the complainant called the official in charge in order to obtain further information regarding this matter. On this occasion, the complainant was informed that the EESC Traineeship Office had received several e-mails sent in her name, in which it had been explained that she declined the offer in question. According to the complainant, she had never sent e-mails with such content. In order to find out the reasons for this very strange situation, the complainant asked the official in charge to forward these e-mails to her by electronic transmission. However, the EESC instead sent her a paper copy of these e-mails by fax.

In her complaint to the European Ombudsman, the complainant admitted that the relevant e-mail messages had been sent using her yahoo identity and had also been signed with her name and surname. However, she reiterated that she did not send these messages and that there must have been unauthorised access to her Internet mailbox.

The complainant alleged that the EESC had failed to handle her traineeship application case properly. She argued that, after receiving conflicting information concerning her participation in the traineeship, the EESC should have contacted her by telephone, so as to receive personal clarification on the matter. The complainant claimed that the EESC should forward to her all the e-mails that had allegedly been received from her by e-mail.

1.2 In its opinion, the EESC explained that it had received e-mails in which the complainant declared that she had changed her mind about the traineeship. The EESC submitted that the contents of these e-mails had not given rise to any doubts as to their authenticity. It further submitted that the complainant's e-mails had been answered without any delay and that before the official in charge had had a chance to contact her by telephone, the complainant had herself telephoned him. The EESC pointed out that it could not be held liable for any potential failure on the part of the complainant to safeguard access to her e-mail account.

1.3 No written observations were received from the complainant. However, on the occasion of a telephone conversation with the Ombudsman's Office on 28 May 2008, the complainant stated that she was still not able to understand why the EESC had not, in view of the circumstances of her case, telephoned her in order to clarify the matter.

1.4 On the basis of the information provided, the Ombudsman notes that the following e-mails were exchanged between the EESC Traineeship Office and the complainant or an unknown person using the complainant's e-mail address and her name:

"My name is L. T. from Bulgaria and today (Monday) we talked on the phone regarding my participation in the Training program starting from March (I was on the reserve list). I am afraid I excepted [sic] too hasty [sic]. I am writing this letter to inform you that I won't be able to participate in the traineeship because it does not fit in my work and study schedule (...)" (e-mail sent to the EESC on 5 March 2007 at 23.48 CET(1)).

"Thank you very much for your answer, even if it is negative" (e-mail sent by the EESC on 6 March 2007 at 9.47 CET).

"Please let me inquire about the details regarding my internship in the EESC. My primary concern regards accommodation in Brussels (...). Any advice on this subject will be very useful for me. (...) I am now arranging the details of my departure and will probably need to contact you again for further information..." (e-mail sent to the EESC on 6 March 2007 at 15.28 CET).

"Dear Mrs T., did you write this e-mail: [enclosed is the text of the e-mail sent to the EESC on 5 March 2007 at 23.48 CET]. I informed my superior of your negative answer, and now I do not understand why you send these questions. Please advise rapidly" (e-mail sent by the EESC on 6 March 2007 at 15.36 CET).

"I wanted to apologize for the mixed messages regarding my internship in the EESC. I am writing this letter to inform you I won't be able to participate and I hope you find another intern" (e-mail sent to the EESC on 6 March 2007 at 19.49 CET).

"Please let me know if this e-mail still functions because I tried to send you an e-mail on it but I am afraid it might have not arrived. I would just like to receive confirmation and further information regarding my traineeship (...)" (e-mail sent to the EESC on 7 March 2007 at 11.44 CET).

"We received your negative answer two times, therefore I do not understand why there should be any more questions to answer" (e-mail sent by the EESC on 7 March 2007 at 14.29 CET).

"As I have notified you previously I won't be able to participate in the trainee program starting from March. But I have applied for the program starting from September 2007. Since I was selected for the March stage (although I won't be able to come) can I qualify automatically for the September one?" (e-mail sent to the EESC on 8 March 2007 at 14.49 CET).

According to the complainant, only the e-mails sent on 6 March 2007 at 15.28 CET and on 7 March 2007 at 11.44 CET had been sent by her.

1.5 From the information provided to the Ombudsman, it appears that, after the complainant had accepted the proposed traineeship in a telephone conversation which took place on 5 March 2007, an e-mail was addressed later that day to the EESC in which she appeared to reject the proposal. Given that this e-mail was addressed to the EESC official who had telephoned the complainant earlier that day, that it referred explicitly to the telephone conversation that had taken place, and that it was sent from the complainant's e-mail address, the Ombudsman considers that the official concerned was entitled to assume that the complainant had changed her mind and no longer wished to accept the offer that had been made to her. The fact that the official concerned appears to have informed his superior accordingly shortly afterwards is therefore fully understandable in the Ombudsman's view. The Ombudsman also notes that the EESC official concerned rapidly and courteously acknowledged receipt of the e-mail he had received by sending a reply early on 6 March 2007.

1.6 The Ombudsman further notes that, when the official concerned received the message that the complainant addressed to him on 6 March 2007 at 15.28 CET, in which she indicated that she intended to accept the offer that had been made to her, he acted immediately in order to clarify matters. As a matter of fact, only several minutes appear to have lapsed before this official sent an e-mail to the complainant, asking for an explanation. The Ombudsman takes the view that the speed in which the official concerned dealt with the matter deserves to be commended. Although the sequence of e-mails that the complainant seemed to have addressed to the EESC up to that point was clearly odd, the Ombudsman considers that, at that stage, and in the absence of any other elements that would have given rise to doubts, the decision to send an e-mail enquiry rather than attempt to clarify the issue by telephoning the complainant cannot be criticised. The Ombudsman notes that the EESC subsequently received an e-mail that appeared to have been sent by the complainant in which she apologised for the confusing messages that had been addressed to the EESC and confirmed that the complainant would not be able to participate in the traineeship. Given the sequence of events, the Ombudsman considers that, at that stage, the EESC official concerned could reasonably assume that the matter had been clarified.

1.7 The Ombudsman takes the view that the e-mail that was sent to the EESC by the complainant on 7 March 2007 at 11.44 CET substantially modified the situation. It clearly emerges from this e-mail that the complainant intended to accept the offer of a traineeship that had been made to her. Whereas the EESC could reasonably assume, on the basis of the other messages it had received, that the e-mail that had been sent by the complainant on 6 March 2007 at 15.28 CET was due to a mistake, the contents of the e-mail that was sent to the EESC on 7 March 2007 at 11.44 CET clearly showed that there was a discrepancy that needed to be clarified. In the Ombudsman's view, the official concerned should, at that stage, indeed have tried to solve the problem by telephoning the complainant rather then sending a further e-mail. It should be noted in this context that the official concerned had made the initial contact with the complainant by telephone. There is nothing to suggest that it would not have been possible for the official concerned again to contact the complainant by telephone. Although the Ombudsman thus takes the view that the EESC did not do all that it should have done in the circumstances, he considers that the maladministration that occurred was of a minor nature.

1.8 In its opinion, the EESC suggested that the official concerned would have telephoned the complainant had the latter not telephoned that official in the afternoon of 8 March 2007. In view of certain statements made by the official concerned in the documents that were submitted to him, the Ombudsman is not convinced that this official did indeed intend to telephone the complainant. However, the fact remains that a telephone contact between the EESC and the complainant did come about, albeit on the latter's initiative, soon after the EESC ought to have, in the Ombudsman's view, telephoned her. It is undisputed that this conversation made the complainant aware of the fact that the EESC had received certain e-mail messages. It is undisputed that this conversation made the complainant aware of the fact that the EESC had received certain e-mail messages that had purportedly been sent by her and that had had an important influence on the way in which the EESC had handled her case. As a matter of fact, it is clear that, if the EESC had not received the e-mails that were sent on 5 March 2007 at 23.48 CET, on 6 March 2007 at 19.49 CET and on 7 March 2007 at 14.49 CET, it would never have had any reason to assume that the complainant had changed her mind and had decided to reject the proposed traineeship. It is further undisputed that the EESC subsequently provided the complainant with copies of the relevant e-mails and thus enabled her to understand what had happened.

1.9 In view of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the negative effects of the maladministration that has occurred in the present case (i.e., the EESC's failure to contact the complainant by telephone after it had received the e-mail sent on 7 March 2007 at 14.49 CET) were clearly limited, given the fact that the reasons accounting for the way the EESC had acted as it did were explained to the complainant in a telephone conversation that took place the day after, that is, 8 March 2007. In these circumstances, the Ombudsman takes the view that it would not be appropriate to make a critical remark in this case and that no further inquiries concerning this aspect of the complaint are necessary.

1.10 It appears useful to note in this context that the complainant has filed a complaint against unknown persons with the competent Bulgarian authorities concerning the messages that were sent from her Internet mailbox. The Ombudsman welcomes this step and hopes that the Bulgarian authorities will be able to clarify the matter.

1.11 As regards the complainant's claim that the EESC should forward to her all the e-mails that had allegedly been received from her by e-mail transmission, the Ombudsman notes that the EESC has informed him, in its opinion, that this has been done in the meantime. The complainant, who did not submit written observations, has not challenged this statement.

1.12 In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that no further inquiries concerning this aspect of the complaint are justified either.

2 Concerning the EESC's allegedly inadequate complaints procedure

2.1 On 9 March 2007, the complainant sent a complaint concerning her traineeship, which she addressed separately to the Head of Unit and to the EESC Director. She did not receive a reply from either of the above two addressees. Instead, on 12 March 2007, she received a reply from the very same official against whom she had wished to complain. Following this reply, the complainant sent a second complaint to the Head of Unit. The copy of this complaint that was submitted to the Ombudsman by the complainant bears no date. However, given that the EESC referred in this context to a complaint of 24 March 2007, it appears reasonable to assume that this was the date when it was received by the EESC. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant pointed out that she had not received a reply to her second complaint of 24 March 2007. Following from the above, the complainant alleged that the EESC Traineeship Office complaints procedure was not adequate. She claimed that the EESC should offer her an explanation and provide a reply to her second complaint, which remained unanswered.

2.2 In its opinion, the EESC submitted that, whereas the reply to the complainant's first complaint had been signed by the admissions officer, it was sent on the instructions of the Head of Unit to whom it had been addressed. The EESC further argued that, given that the complainant's second complaint to the Head of Unit contained no new relevant facts compared to the first one, a second reply did not seem necessary at the time. However, the EESC acknowledged that it would have been preferable had the complainant received a reply to her second complaint. On 12 September 2007, the EESC sent a letter to the complainant offering an apology for the misunderstanding concerning her traineeship application with the EESC, as well as for the absence of a written reaction on the part of the EESC administration following the complainant's second complaint. A copy of this letter was submitted to the Ombudsman. In its opinion on the complaint, the EESC pointed out that, in the future, every effort would be made to ensure that all such correspondence be given an appropriate reply and that any complaint regarding the Traineeship Office would be handled by the Head of Unit.

2.3 The Ombudsman considers that it is good administrative practice that complaints against a Community official should normally not be answered by this very same official, but by the superior of this official or by another appropriate official/body. He notes, however, that the EESC has informed him that it has decided to change its procedures concerning complaints relating to the Traineeship Office and that it has apologised to the complainant for the absence of a reply on her second complaint and for the misunderstanding concerning her traineeship application. The Ombudsman welcomes these steps taken by the EESC.

2.4 On 29 May 2008, the Ombudsman's services telephoned the complainant, who explained that she was satisfied with the way in which the EESC had dealt with this part of her complaint.

3 Conclusion

In view of the above, the Ombudsman considers that, in so far as the complainant's second allegation and her related first claim are concerned, the EESC has taken steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied the complainant.

As regards the complainant's first allegation and her second claim, the Ombudsman takes the view that there is no need for further inquiries.

The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

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

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) Central European Time (CET).