Dear Mr A.,

On 2 August 2001, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Investment Bank (hereinafter called "EIB"). You alleged that you were subject to professional harassment by a high-ranking official and that you were a victim of denial of justice on the part of the EIB.

On 10 October 2001, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Investment Bank. The European Investment Bank sent its opinion on 15 January 2002. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 1 March 2002.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant has been an official of the European Investment Bank since 1985. He began working as a translator in the Spanish translation section and now occupies the post of Head of the Spanish Translation section.

On 15 January 1999, the complainant 's secretary went on maternity leave. At the time of her departure, the complainant told his superior that he no longer required the usual temporary replacement secretary. He confirmed his wish to continue to work without a secretary to the Head of Division in March 1999. His request was accepted and on her return to work in September 1999, the secretary was transferred to another service in the EIB.

On 19 December 2000, the complainant wrote to the EIB Human Resources Department claiming that a high-ranking official of the EIB had informed him that a procedure had been instituted against him for having said that he did not need a secretary. According to the complainant, the high-ranking official had said to him that he might as well leave the EIB since, at some future date, the remaining translators would be made redundant anyway, due to a new linguistic policy. In the complainant's view, the ultimate aim was to push him to early retirement.

Following errors found in the Spanish translation of the EIB's Annual Report, the Management Committee decided to organise an external expert assessment of the complainant's translation work.

The complainant criticised the organisation of this expert assessment and claimed that his former secretary had been involved in it. In order to prove this, he called on a certified graphologist to conduct a calligraphic study. The Bank then presented a hand-written statement by the expert to confirm the bona fide analysis of the translations. The complainant further requested confirmation by the expert that this statement was a typical example of his handwriting but did not receive any answer. He therefore referred to a graphologist for the second time to conduct another calligraphic study.

On 19 March 2001, the complainant lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman (411/2001/BB). The complaint was declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 2.3 of the Statute of the Ombudsman, because the object of the complaint was not identified. The complainant later wrote to the European Ombudsman on 2, 3 May and 5 June 2001 requesting a review. In his reply, the European Ombudsman explained that the complainant had to make prior administrative approaches, in accordance with Article 2.8 of the Statute of the European Ombudsman, in particular the conciliation procedure under Article 41 of the Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank.

A duly constituted conciliation panel convened on 16 July 2001 in order to seek an amicable settlement of the matter. The panel agreed to recommend to the two parties the following position of conciliation:

- The EIB should confirm that the complainant is a translator and that there is no express intention to move him from that post

- Reference to the external expert assessment has already been excluded from the complainant's 1999 annual appraisal and all traces of it should be removed from the complainant's personal file

- As a sign of goodwill, the EIB should make an ex gratia payment to the complainant of 15 000 Euro.

- The complainant should accept that all the issues raised in his letter of 19 December 2000 are now closed and are not to be resurrected later.

On 1 August 2001, the complainant wrote to the President of the EIB informing him that the attempt at conciliation under Article 41 of the EIB's Staff Regulations had failed.

On 2 August 2001, the complainant renewed his complaint to the Ombudsman and alleged:

1. professional harassment by a high-ranking official of the EIB

2. denial of justice by the EIB.

The complainant claimed protection against arbitrary eviction and a professional rehabilitation from the European Investment Bank. He also claims compensation for material and non-material damage and censure of the offenders.

THE INQUIRY

The European Investment Bank's opinion

The opinion of the European Investment Bank was, in summary, the following;

1. Regarding the allegation of professional harassment, the Bank considered that it was a serious accusation that would be followed up without any delay. Nevertheless, the complainant failed to provide the identification of the official concerned and any evidence to substantiate his claim. Moreover, in a letter of 30 November 1999, the department Director provided the complainant with formal assurances that his feelings of professional harassment were unfounded.

Concerning the external expert assessment of the complainant's work, the policy of the Bank is that, unless a query is received from outside a language section, no further controls are made once a translation has passed the quality control stage of the language section concerned. In the case of the Spanish section, there is only one translator in charge of his own quality control. The Bank decided consequently to organise an external expert assessment after full discussion with the complainant and responded to all of the complainant's notes on the matter. The Bank communicated in full the results of the external expert assessment to the complainant as soon as they were available. The complainant wrongly alleged that his former secretary took part in the review of his work. A hand-written statement by the expert confirmed this.

2. As regards the allegation of denial of justice, the EIB considered that the complainant's claims and requests had always been handled fairly, in compliance with the principles of good administration and with the prevailing rules and procedures, including recourse to appeal procedures.

Concerning the complainant's claim of protection against arbitrary eviction, the Bank took the view that the legal framework in which it operates protects all staff against arbitrary eviction. The claim of professional rehabilitation was unfounded in the sense that the complainant presently occupies the post of Head of the Spanish translation section. In the Bank's view, it has not caused any material or moral damages nor is it apprised of any instance of professional harassment. It therefore considered the claims of compensation for material and moral damages and censure for the offenders unfounded.

The complainant's observations

The European Ombudsman forwarded the European Investment Bank's opinion to the complainant with an invitation to make observations. In his reply, the complainant repeated his allegation of professional harassment by a high-ranking official and stated that the hierarchy has consistently sided with the high-ranking official against the complainant.

The complainant repeated his claims of protection against arbitrary eviction, censure for the offenders, compensation for material and non-material damage and professional rehabilitation.

In addition, the complainant questioned the decision of 30 November 2001 of the EIB Adjudication Panel concerning the appeal he lodged against his annual appraisal for 2000. He alleges that all his claims have been rejected out of hand. The European Ombudsman notes that this new allegation falls outside the scope of the original complaint. The Ombudsman does not consider it necessary or appropriate to examine the new allegation in the framework of his inquiry into the present complaint. A new complaint could be lodged if necessary.

THE DECISION

1 The allegation of professional harassment by a high-ranking official

1.1 The complainant alleged that he was victim of professional harassment by a high-ranking official of the EIB. He criticised the organisation of an external expert assessment of his work and alleged that his former secretary was involved in the assessment.

1.2 The European Investment Bank stated that the complainant failed to provide identification of the official concerned or any evidence to substantiate his claim. It also explained that in the case of the Spanish section, there is only one translator in charge of his own quality control. It decided consequently to organise an expert assessment after full discussion with the complainant.

1.3 The European Ombudsman notes that the Bank tried to seek an friendly settlement of the matter by using a conciliation panel, further to the complainant's request. The complainant refused the conclusions of the panel in a letter to the President of the Bank. The European Ombudsman considers that the EIB has made a reasonable conciliation effort with which the complainant has not been satisfied.

1.4 The European Ombudsman also notes that the EIB stated in its opinion that it would itself follow up the allegation of professional harassment without delay if the complainant could give more information on the identification of the official concerned and produce evidence to substantiate his claim.

1.5 In the light of the above, the Ombudsman's inquiry into the complainant's allegation has revealed no maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint.

2 The allegation of denial of justice by the European Investment Bank

2.1 The complainant alleged that the European Investment Bank denied him justice.

2.2 The Bank argued that the complainant's allegations have always been dealt with fairly, without discrimination and in compliance with the principles of good administration and the prevailing rules and procedures, including recourse to appeal procedures.

2.3 On the basis of the information provided by the complainant and the EIB, the Ombudsman considers that it appears that the Bank always endeavoured to deal correctly with the complainant's allegations. He also notes the willingness of the Bank to discuss with the complainant the possibility of re-establishment of working relations based on the principles of loyalty and reciprocal trust between staff and superiors.

2.5 The Ombudsman therefore concludes that there is no maladministration as regards this aspect of the case.

3 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Investment Bank.

In view of the findings of no maladministration in sections 1 and 2 of this decision, the Ombudsman does not consider it necessary to inquire further into the complainant's claims.

The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The President of the European Investment Bank will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN