Dear Mr. J.,
On 21 February 1998, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Parliament. You alleged that the Parliament had never replied to your application for an in-service training with the Parliament.
On 11 May 1998, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Parliament. The Parliament sent its opinion on 17 November 1998. I forwarded the opinion to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. I did not receive any observations 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:
In spring 1997, the complainant who is a German junior lawyer, applied for an in-service training with the Parliament. He did not receive any reply from the Parliament. A reminder letter to the Parliament also remained unanswered.
The complainant thereafter lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman. He stated that he should have been given a reply.

THE INQUIRY

The Parliament's opinion
As regards the main aspects of the complaint, the Parliament confirmed that the Traineeship Office received the complainant's application for in-service training.

It stated further that the complainant thereafter wrote again asking for the confirmation that his application had been received. He also wished to know what action had been taken on it. The Parliament stated that no answer could be sent at that time since the procedure of selecting candidates for traineeships was under way.
The complainant's application was registered as an application for an ordinary unpaid traineeship. At a meeting of the selection committee concerned, the applications were assessed. The complainant's application was rejected in view of the dates requested for the traineeship. The Parliament stated that since the complainant's application, among 171 others, had never formally been subjected to a selection, no information was sent to these applicants, including the complainant, regarding the outcome of the selection procedure.
The Parliament stated that there were various changes to the relevant rules and procedures for the selection of trainees and management of traineeships in the Parliament's secretariat in 1997. New "Rules governing Traineeships and Study visits in the Secretariat of the European Parliament " were adopted by the Secretary General of the Parliament in December 1996 and entered into force on 1 January 1997. As a result of this, the Traineeship Office was now made responsible for the management of all traineeships, apart from those for conference interpreters. Due to these changes, administrative and technical problems arose.
Finally, the Parliament pointed out that since then, difficulties have been overcome and applications for unpaid traineeships have been regularly considered by the Selection Committee and answers are sent to the applicants. It further stated that the current case was symptomatic of the difficulties encountered with traineeship application in the European Parliament in the transitional year of 1997 and that these difficulties have since been ironed out.

THE DECISION

1. Failure to reply to complainant's application
1.1 The complainant alleged that he did not receive a reply to his application for an in-service training at the Parliament. He further alleged that also his second letter in which he requested information on the procedure remained unanswered.
1.2 The Parliament has admitted that it neither replied to the complainant's request for information nor did it provide the complainant with the results of the selection procedure. The Parliament explained this behaviour with administrative changes and subsequent problems. It further stated that these difficulties have now been solved and that answers are regularly sent to the applicants informing them about the result of the selection procedure.
1.3 It is good administrative behaviour to reply to letters addressed the institution. Given that the Parliament has taken steps to avoid such occurance in the future and to ensure a smooth running of the selection procedure, the Ombudsman finds no reason to inquire any further.
2. Conclusion
On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiry into this complaint, there appears to be no maladministration by the European Parliament. The Ombudsman has therefore decided to close the case.
The President of the European Parliament will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely
Jacob Söderman