Aveți o plângere împotriva unei instituții sau unui organism al UE?
- EN English
Decision of the European Ombudsman on complaint 991/2006/WP against Eurojust
Decizie
Caz 991/2006/WP - Deschis la Luni | 08 mai 2006 - Decizie din Miercuri | 20 decembrie 2006
Strasbourg, 20 December 2006
Dear Ms V.,
On 5 April 2006, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning a selection procedure for temporary agents organised by Eurojust.
On 8 May 2006, I forwarded the complaint to the Administrative Director of Eurojust. Eurojust sent its opinion on 2 August 2006. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations by 30 September 2006. No observations were received from you by that date.
I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.
THE COMPLAINT
In December 2004, the complainant attended a job interview with Eurojust for recruitment as a temporary agent. She reported that, in the letter inviting her for the interview, Eurojust had informed her that she would be reimbursed for her travel expenses. The complainant stated that she had "repeatedly" communicated her banking details (including the International Bank Account Number (IBAN) and the Bank Identifier Code (BIC)) to the person in charge of her file. Furthermore, she had, as early as 13 December 2004, submitted the required application forms and supporting documents. However, the complainant stated that she had still not received the payment that was due to her. The complainant alleged that Eurojust had failed properly to deal with her application for the reimbursement of her travel expenses. She claimed that she should be reimbursed.
The complainant also alleged that there were a number of irregularities in the selection procedure (for example the use of improper interviewing methods and a lack of information). However, she did not appear to have made any prior administrative approaches to Eurojust in this regard as required under Article 2(4) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman. Therefore, this aspect of her complaint was not included in the Ombudsman's inquiry. The Ombudsman advised the complainant that, if she wished to pursue this aspect further, she could turn to him again, after having made the appropriate administrative approaches to Eurojust.
THE INQUIRY
Eurojust's opinionEurojust stated that, in its view, there were no outstanding travel costs to be claimed by the complainant. On 13 December 2004, the complainant had submitted the application forms. By e-mail of the same day, Eurojust's recruitment officer had informed her that she had not filled in the bank account number information, that is the IBAN and BIC, in the "Financial Identification Form" and that reimbursement without this information was impossible. The recruitment officer had asked her to send this information as soon as possible. The complainant had provided the required information on 2 February 2005. The payment (EUR 69.90) had been made on 3 March 2005. This sum corresponded to the amount the complainant had requested, with the exception of the cost for a taxi fare for which the complainant had not submitted a receipt.
Therefore, Eurojust took the view that the present complaint had been handled.
The complainant's observationsNo observations were received from the complainant.
THE DECISION
1 Alleged failure to reimburse travel expenses1.1 In December 2004, the complainant attended a job interview with Eurojust. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, she stated that she had still not received reimbursement of her travel expenses, even though she had "repeatedly" communicated her banking details to the person in charge of the file and even though she had submitted the required application forms and supporting documents as early as 13 December 2004. The complainant alleged that Eurojust had failed properly to deal with her application for the reimbursement of her travel expenses. She claimed that she should be reimbursed.
1.2 Eurojust stated that, in its view, there were no outstanding travel costs to be claimed by the complainant. She had submitted the application forms on 13 December 2004. On the same day, she had been informed that she had not provided her bank account number information, without which reimbursement was not possible, and had been asked to do so as soon as possible. According to Eurojust, the complainant had provided the required information on 2 February 2005. The payment (EUR 69.90) had been made on 3 March 2005. This sum corresponded to the amount the complainant had requested, with the exception of the cost for a taxi fare for which the complainant had not submitted a receipt. Therefore, Eurojust took the view that the present complaint had been handled.
1.3 The Ombudsman notes that the complainant has not contested Eurojust's account of events. In particular, the complainant had stressed in her complaint that she had "repeatedly" provided her banking details. However, she did not specify when she communicated this information to Eurojust. With her complaint, the complainant only enclosed a copy of the e-mail she received from Eurojust on 13 December 2004, in which Eurojust asks her to provide her banking details. In relation to the composition of the sum for which she requested to be reimbursed, the complainant has not provided any information to the Ombudsman.
Therefore, the Ombudsman does not see any reason to doubt Eurojust's account of events. On the basis of the information in the Ombudsman's possession, it appears that Eurojust immediately contacted the complainant when it realised that certain information required for the reimbursement was missing and that, once the complainant had provided the required information, it made the relevant payment, covering the costs for which it had received receipts.
1.4 The Ombudsman concludes that the complainant has not substantiated her allegation that Eurojust failed properly to deal with her application for the reimbursement of her travel expenses. He finds no maladministration in relation to the present complaint.
2 ConclusionOn the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by Eurojust. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
The Administrative Director of Eurojust will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely,
P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS