The background to the complaint

1. The complainant, who worked in a Commission building for an external service provider, was unhappy at one day being asked to put his lunch through the scanner by the security staff at the building where he worked. He wrote a letter of complaint to the relevant section of the Commission. In his letter, he referred to repeated incidents with the security guards that he considered to cause stress for employees at the building in question.

2. In its reply, the Commission explained that the increased security measures were due to the raised level of alert, following the terror attacks in Belgium. It confirmed that food and beverages had to be scanned, and added that signs would be put up to give information about which items have to pass through the security scanners. The Commission also drew attention to a list of ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ (FAQs) related to the security controls for Commission buildings. One of the questions in the FAQs dealt with the different levels of security control applying depending on the status of the persons concerned. The answer was as follows:

“As indicated above, in exceptional alert stages staff may also be required to go through metal detectors and their bags through x-ray machines.

However, requiring each staff member, in addition to all external persons, to go through these security controls every time they enter a Commission [building] would have a disproportionate impact on business continuity.”

3. The complainant thereafter turned to the European Ombudsman. He claimed that the Commission should apply the same level of security checks to officials as it applies to employees of external service providers. He argued that this practise amounted to ‘discrimination’ by the Commission.

The Ombudsman's assessment

4. The European Ombudsman fully recognises that security checks can be a source of irritation and create a feeling of unnecessary intrusion into a person’s private sphere. It is an additional source of possible discontent when certain groups of people are subject to stricter security checks than others working in the same workplace.

5. However, the Ombudsman equally recognises that those who decide on security procedures have to strike a difficult balance between security risks and the need to ensure an appropriate degree of organisational efficiency.

6. Regarding this case, the Commission has essentially adopted the approach that EU officials should, as far as possible, not be subject to the highest levels of security controls at the entrance of its buildings. It does not exclude that circumstances may lead it to impose stricter levels of security controls on these officials, but it intends to avoid this in the interest of business continuity.

7. The European Ombudsman finds that the Commission’s approach does not amount to maladministration. It is true, as the complainant points out, that the approach gives rise to a difference in treatment. However, the Commission appears to have justified this difference in treatment. EU officials constitute a considerable proportion of the Commission’s workforce. To apply the highest levels of security checks to all these officials would clearly therefore significantly slow down the access of its core workforce to their work space. This would not only risk causing disruption at the entrance of the buildings, but would presumably also cause other disruptions.

8. The Commission is clearly in a better position to monitor and manage the security risk of staff it employs directly than employees of external service providers. As such, the Commission can justify adopting a different approach to the security checks it applies to these different categories of people working in its buildings. 

9. In light of the above, the Ombudsman finds that the Commission’s application of different levels of security checks to different categories of people working in its buildings does not amount to maladministration.

Conclusion

On the basis of the inquiry into this complaint, the Ombudsman closes it with the following conclusion:

The Ombudsman finds no maladministration by the European Commission.

The complainant and the Commission will be informed of this decision.

 

Peter Bonnor

Head of Unit 5- Inquiries and process management

Strasbourg, 12/09/2017