Strasbourg, 17 April 2008

Dear Mr M.,

On 17 July 2006, you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission. Your complaint concerned the rejection of your application for a traineeship within the Commission. On 10 October 2006, I opened an inquiry into your complaint. On 15 December 2006, I received the Commission's opinion on this complaint. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations. I have received no observations from you.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant submitted an application for a traineeship at the European Commission (traineeship period starting in October 2006). By e-mail of 23 March 2006, he was informed that his application had not been accepted because of "missing compulsory supporting document[s]: certificates and/or declarations for all work experience declared on the application form". By e-mail of 28 March 2006, the complainant contested the rejection of his application, arguing that (a) the only document he had not provided concerned a three-month work experience he had had when he was still a student, and that this experience was of no special worth; (b) under the relevant rules, all supporting documents have to be provided together with the application, but it was not clear that the absence of documentation regarding declared work experience, such as the above-mentioned work, could result in the rejection of the application. The complainant received a reply from the Head of the Commission's Traineeship Office, indicating that:

"It is clearly stated on the website that your application file must be complete at the time of posting and that the Traineeships Office does not accept documents sent afterwards that were not included in your original file (...) Furthermore, you were told on the website, as well as on the checklist at the end of the application form, that proof of any work experience declared is an obligatory part of the supporting documentation."

In his complaint to the European Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that his application for a traineeship was wrongly rejected by the Commission because of the absence of proof for certain work experience he had declared. He argued that (a) the relevant Commission rules do not state that the absence of such supporting documents results in the rejection of an application and (b) that work experience is not a prerequisite for the eligibility of an application. On 10 October 2006, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the above allegation and supporting arguments(1).

THE INQUIRY

In its opinion, the Commission noted, in summary, the following. Under Points 3.1 and 3.2 of the Rules governing the official traineeships scheme of the European Commission (Commission decision of 2 March 2005 – C(2005)458), applications for a traineeship were examined against the eligibility criteria which were published on the website of the Traineeships Office, before the opening of the application period. The relevant webpages(2) provided explicitly that (a) any incomplete application would automatically be rejected; and (b) for each work experience declared in the application form, the applicant had to provide, as part of the obligatory supporting documentation, an official document indicating the name of the employer, the type, as well as the starting and end dates of the employment (declaration from the employer, or a copy of the contract and the last salary slip). The latter requirement was related to the fact that professional experience was one of the three most important criteria on which the Commission services made their selection. Supporting evidence was therefore important. In the application form, applicants were invited to list up to three relevant work experiences. The complainant failed to submit the required supporting documents concerning certain work experience that he had declared. Hence, his application did not meet the eligibility criteria mentioned on the website. The complainant did not make observations on the Commission’s opinion.

THE DECISION

1 Allegation that that the complainant's application for a traineeship was wrongly rejected by the Commission because of the absence of proof of certain work experience he had declared

1.1 The complainant submitted an application for a traineeship at the European Commission (traineeship period starting in October 2006). His application was not accepted because of "missing compulsory supporting document[s]: certificates and/or declarations for all work experience declared on the application form". In his complaint to the European Ombudsman, he alleged that his application was wrongly rejected for the above-mentioned reason. He argued that (a) the relevant Commission rules do not state that the absence of such supporting documents results in the rejection of an application and (b) work experience is not a prerequisite to the eligibility of an application. On 10 October 2006, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the above allegation and supporting arguments.

1.2 In its opinion, the Commission noted, in summary, the following. Under Points 3.1 and 3.2 of the Rules governing the official traineeships scheme of the European Commission (Commission decision of 2 March 2005 – C(2005)458), applications for a traineeship are examined against the eligibility criteria which are published on the website of the Traineeships Office, before the opening of the application period. The relevant webpages(3) provided explicitly that (a) any incomplete application would automatically be rejected; and (b) for each work experience declared in the application form, the applicant had to provide, as part of the obligatory supporting documentation, an official document indicating the name of the employer, the type, as well as the starting and end dates of the employment (declaration from the employer, or a copy of the contract and the last salary slip). The latter requirement is related to the fact that professional experience is one of the three most important criteria on which the Commission services make their selection. Supporting evidence is therefore important. In the application form, applicants are invited to list up to three relevant work experiences. The complainant failed to submit the required supporting documents with respect to certain work experience he had declared. Hence, his application did not meet the eligibility criteria mentioned on the website. The complainant did not make observations on the Commission’s opinion.

1.3 In view of the above explanations and the supporting documents provided by the Commission, the Ombudsman considers that the complainant’s allegation has not been substantiated. He, thus, finds no corresponding instance of maladministration on the part of the Commission.

2 Conclusion

On the basis of his inquiries into this complaint, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration by the Commission. The Ombudsman, thus, closes the case.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) By contrast, the Ombudsman decided not to open an inquiry into the complainant's claim that the applications for the relevant traineeship period should be reconsidered, since this period had already started. On 26 July 2006, the complainant was informed that the Ombudsman is not empowered to order interim measures and that his decisions are not binding on the Institution concerned.

(2) A print screen of these webpages was included in the Commission’s opinion.

(3) A print screen of these webpages was included in the Commission’s opinion.