Dear Mrs V.,
On 22 October 1997, you sent a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the alleged refusal of Economic and Social Committee (ESC) to pay your resettlement allowance and travel expenses following your resignation as an official of that institution.
On 1 December 1997, I forwarded your complaint to the President of the ESC with a request for comments by the end of February 1998. During this period, you sent additional information to the European Ombudsman on 20 February 1998.
On 24 February, the ESC sent its opinion and I forwarded it to you on 5 March 1998, with an invitation to make observations, if so you wished. On 3 April 1998, you sent your observations. On 9 June 1999 the ESC forwarded some additional documents to me regarding the latest exchange of correspondence between yourself and the institution.
I am writing now to let you know the result of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the relevant facts were as follows:
In her first letter to the Ombudsman of October 1997, the complainant explained that she had worked as an official for the Economic and Social Committee (ESC), although in May 1996 she resigned from her post. She had unsuccessfully requested on 3 and 15 September 1997 the payment of the resettlement and travel allowances from Brussels to Madrid, corresponding to her as well as to her son. Ms V. lodged an appeal as provided for in art. 90 ' 1 and 2 of the Staff Regulations. She claimed that the institution had refused to pay these indemnities in breach of the rights granted to her in Annex VII of the Staff Regulations.
On 9 December 1997, the complainant wrote again to the European Ombudsman, including with her letter a copy of the decision by the ESC concerning her Art. 90, 2 appeal, dated 17 November 1997. In the ESC letter, the institution had refused the payment of the indemnities on the grounds that the complainant had not provided sufficient evidence in support of her claim.
Ms V. contested both the reasoning of the decision, as she claimed to have sent enough documents concerning her travel and resettlement in Spain, and the lack of clear criteria as regards the required documentation. In its decision, the ESC has invited the complainant to forward "all the means of proof that she might consider appropriate". According to the complainant, the failure of the institution to specify the requested documents rendered the decision arbitrary and with no legal foundation. She also included with her letter additional information consisting of a letter sent to the Secretary General of the ESC on 28 November 1997 which included a certificate of residence issued by the municipality of Madrid.
On 20 February 1998, the complainant wrote again to the Ombudsman enclosing copy of the decision adopted by the ESC Secretary General, Mr Graziosi, in reply to her latest request. The decision of the ESC rejected again Ms V.'s claim on the basis that she had not forwarded sufficient proof to support her claim. The letter also pointed out that her move to Madrid could be proved by means such as documents related to her new activity in Spain, or copies of her electricity or water bills.
In summary, the complainant claimed that the ESC had wrongly denied her rights to a resettlement and travel allowances following her resignation from the institution, and that the refusal failed to state any proper reasoning.

THE INQUIRY

The Economic and Social Committee's opinion
In its opinion, the ESC stated, in summary, the following:
The ESC first restated the chronology of the facts, including its latest decision on 26 January 1998, in reply to the latest appeal of the complainant.
The ESC explained that in its first letter on 17 November 1997, it had informed the complainant that she was entitled to resettlement compensation and to the reimbursement of her removal costs, once the complainant could established on the basis of supportive evidence that she had moved to Spain with her son and resettled there.
On 26 January 1998, the institution rejected t he complainant's claims on the basis of the information forwarded by Ms V. on 28 November 1997. The documents she had enclosed such as a copy of her request for registration in Madrid was not sufficient to prove that she had actually moved to Madrid. According to the ESC, this certificate only established that the complainant and her son were registered in Madrid, not that they had set their residence there, as it was necessary. As regards the travel reimbursement, the ESC also refused her reject since the complainant had not provided any detail regarding the circumstances of her trip from Brussels to Madrid.
The ESC added, however, that the complainant could still put forward new requests. It named several examples, such as electricity or water bills, which the complainant could use as proof.
The ESC also made some observations concerning the admissibility of the complaint by the European Ombudsman. It considered that the Ombudsman should declare the complaint inadmissible on the basis of article 2.8 of his Statute, which indicates that no complaint may be made to the Ombudsman that concerns work relationships between Community institutions and their officials unless all possibilities for submission of internal administrative requests and complaints, in particular the procedures referred to in Article 90 (1) and (2) of the Staff Regulations, have been exhausted.
In the ESC's view, this condition had not been met since at the time Ms V. sent her complaint to the Ombudsman, the procedure under her Art. 90 before the ESC had not yet decided, and the institution deadline for a decision had not yet elapsed.
The ESC concluded by stressing that all its decisions had properly justified its refusal to grant the requests of the complainant, in full compliance with the rights and obligations set out in the Staff Regulations. The ESC also explained that the complainant, in her three letters, had asserted that Madrid had become her place of residence, whereas following her resignation she had claimed that she had moved to Casablanca, Morocco. This latter argument had been put forward by the complainant in a case regarding a different claim which the complainant had lodged with the Court of First Instance (Case T-30/97, V. v. ESC)(1). The CFI had rejected the arguments on the grounds that she had not furnished appropriate evidence.
The complainant's observations
In her observations, received on 30 April 1998, the complainant underlined the claims made already in her previous letters, as regards the lack of reasoning in the decisions taken by the ESC.
Ms V. enclosed with her letter some new documentation including the new request she had sent to the ESC on 6 February 1998 and the institution's reply of 6 March 1998. The new request by the complainant was accompanied by new documentation, in line with what had been previously suggested by the ESC, namely the electric and water bills of the complainant's apartment in Madrid, as well as details related to her trip in August 1997 from Brussels to Madrid. The reply of the ESC Secretary General annexed to the complainant's observations, stated that her request had been forwarded to the ESC Directorate for Personnel for further consideration.

FURTHER INQUIRIES

Since the ESC had not adopted a position on the complainant's request, but its Directorate for Personnel was still considering the matter, the Secretariat of the Ombudsman contacted the institution to inquiry on the developments of the case. In reply to this request, the ESC sent on 9 June 1999 a copy of the latest exchange of correspondence between the institution and the complainant. Among the new information, the ESC included a note from its appointing authority dates 21 August 1998 in which it concluded that the complainant had properly justified in its latest request of 30 April 1998 the expenses whose reimbursement had been requested. However, the decision did not extend to the son of the complainant, on the grounds that the new documents included no reference to him.
Taking into consideration that all these new documents had been previously notified to Mrs V. by the ESC, the Ombudsman considers unnecessary to forward them for observations to the complainant.

THE DECISION

1. Admissibility of the case and further inquiry by the European Ombudsman
1.1 The ESC stated in its opinion that the complaint should be declare inadmissible, since it did not meet the conditions set out in article 2.8 of the Statute of the European Ombudsman(2). As explained in the ESC opinion, at the time Ms V. sent her complaint to the Ombudsman, the institution had not formally decided on the appeal submitted by the complainant under Art. 90 of the Staff Regulations, and hence, the internal complaints' procedure provided by this article, had not been exhausted.
1.2. Under the scheme established by the Treaty and the Statute of the European Ombudsman, the admissibility of complaints is determined by the European Ombudsman. Having examined the complaint of Ms V., it appeared from the text of the standard form as if the requests and formal appeal submitted by the complainant to the ESC, had been formally rejected by this institution.
1.3 Since the procedures referred to in Article 2 § 8 of his Statute had been followed by the complainant, and the text of the complaint led to the conclusion that the ESC had dismissed her claims, the Ombudsman declared it admissible on 1 December 1997.
Even though the chronology of events described in the ESC opinion of 24 February 1997 showed that the institution had not taken a formal view in the complainant's appeal when she sent her letter to the Ombudsman, the institution formally rejected her appeal soon after the Ombudsman decided to open an inquiry into the matter, and before the institution was called to give its opinion.
Taken into account these considerations, the Ombudsman thus considered that the procedural deficiencies of the complainant had been rectified in the course of the proceedings, and therefore decided to continue the inquiry into this matter.
2. Reasoning of the ESC decisions refusing the payment of the complainant's resettlement allowance and travel expenses
2.1 The complainant has argued that the decisions taken by the ESC concerning her requests for resettlement allowances and travel expenses were unjustified. Moreover, she claimed that the reasons used by the ESC to explain its refusal were unclear and did not specify the documents the institution needed to grant her request.
2.2. The ESC has stated, in reply to the complainant's request, that she did not include in her request any evidence to prove her move and change of address from Brussels to Madrid. At a later stage, when the complainant submitted a request for registration addressed to the municipality of Madrid or a single air ticket to Madrid, the institution indicated that these documents did not constituted sufficient evidence of a change of residence. Furthermore the ESC explained that in order to prove her new status she could provide, for instance, documents such as electricity or gas bills, certificates of work, and/or a description of the circumstances of the travel.
Once the complainant furnished that evidence in her letter of 30 April 1998, the ESC reassessed the matter, and eventually granted the allowances (Decision of 21 August 1998). Yet this decision only applied to the complainant herself, since the institution considered that the evidence submitted did not make any reference whatever at the situation of her son.
2.3. It is a principle of good administrative behavior that decisions be reasoned. The purpose of that obligation is to enable the Community judicature to review the legality of the decisions and to give the person concerned sufficient indication to determine whether such decisions are well founded, or contained defects allowing their legality to be challenged. The extent of the obligation must be determined, however, on the basis of the facts of each case.
2.4. The Ombudsman does not consider that the ESC failed to give sufficient indications to the complainant in its three notes on the reason upon which the rejections have been based.
In the absence of any evidence proving the complainant's resettlement the ESC responded by underlying the need for supportive evidence. At a later stage, when the complainant enclosed additional documents, the ESC explained why it thought the proof submitted was insufficient, and pointed out also to the documents that it considered might prove her change of status. Once the complainant submitted these documents, the institution agreed to grant her request. However, since the information contained in these documents only referred to the complainant and made no indication to her son, the institution could not increase the amount of the allowances granted on account of him.
The Ombudsman considers that there was no maladministration as regards this aspect of the case.
3. Conclusion
On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the Economic and Social Committee. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
The President of the the Economic and Social Committee will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely,
Jacob SÖDERMAN

---

(1) Case T-30/97, V. v. ESC, ECR [1998] IA-0011; II-0023. The case involved to, among others, the annulment of a ESC disciplinary measure. The CFI declared the action inadmissible since the complainant had brought it beyond the time-limit. Even though, the applicant claimed that she should have the right to a time extension on account of her residence outside Europe (Morocco), she did not provide any proof in support of her assertion (par. 33).

(2) Article 2 ' 8 of the Statute of the European Ombudsman states: "No complaint may be made to the Ombudsman that concerns work relationships between the Community institutions and bodies and their officials and other servants unless all the possibilities for the submission of internal administrative requests and complaints, in particular the procedures referred to in Article 90 (1) and (2) of the Staff Regulations, have been exhausted [...]"