Dear Mr P.,

On 16 April 1999, the European Ombudsman received a complaint from you concerning the European Commission's alleged failure to assist you in dealing with your benefit rights under EC Regulation 1408/71.

On 22 April 1999, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 29 July 1999. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 4 September 1999. On 29 August 2000, I asked the Commission for further information. The Commission sent its further opinion on 23 November 2000 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished.

No further observations appear to have been received from you.

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

THE COMPLAINT

In April 1999, an Italian citizen living in Sweden, submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the alleged failure by the European Commission to assist him.

The complainant had suffered a severe accident during a vacation in Greece. At the time of the accident, the complainant was a newly graduated student and following the accident he was not allowed to work for six months. The complainant inquired about possible assistance from the Italian consulate in Stockholm and from his municipality in Italy without success. He therefore turned to the Eurojus officer at the Commission's representation in Stockholm. The Eurojus officer informed the complainant that according to Regulation 1408/71/EEC, the complainant enjoyed the right to receive benefits in Sweden according to the Italian rules, provided that such benefits existed under Italian law.

The complainant submitted an official request for assistance to the Italian consulate in Stockholm asking it to forward the request to his municipality in Italy. Since no one appeared to know what to do, the complainant in November 1998 turned to the Eurojus officer at the Commission's representation in Rome asking for assistance in contacting the competent Italian authority and to ensure the correct implementation of the Community rules. In January 1999, the complainant called the Commission's representation in Rome and was told that his letter had not yet been read or opened. He was told that he would be contacted within a few days.

In April 1999, the representation in Rome had still not contacted the complainant. When the Commission's representation in Stockholm received a new Eurojus officer, the complainant turned again to this office for help. The Eurojus officer was not sure as to how the situation should be solved. He tried to contact the representation in Rome by e-mail without success.

The complainant stated that he had been without money for eight months during which he borrowed money from friends.

The complainant alleged that he would not have been put in this situation if the representation offices of the Commission had tried to solve the matter and he claimed that the Commission should intervene in order to solve the situation.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion, the Commission explained that the complainant, following an accident in Greece in July 1998, contacted the Eurojus officer at the Commission's representation in Stockholm in October 1998 to ask for information in relation to his sickness benefit rights. On 4 November 1998, the Eurojus officer replied to the complainant giving information on his rights under Regulation 1408/71/EEC.

On 24 November 1998, the complainant addressed himself to the Eurojus officer at the Commission's representation in Rome, asking him to intervene. The Commission explained that the correspondence between the complainant and its representation in Rome had faced some problems. Nevertheless, in January 1999, the representation confirmed in a telephone conversation with the complainant the information given to him by the Eurojus officer in Stockholm and further explained that the role of the Eurojus officer is to provide information in relation to Community law matters but not to assist citizens in the administrative or legal proceedings they are involved in.

On 16 March 1999, the Commission's representation in Rome received a request for information from the Italian consulate in Stockholm concerning the legal situation relevant to the complainant under Community law to which it replied on 14 May 1999. In May 1999, the complainant contacted the Commission, DG V (now Employment and Social Affairs DG), by phone and subsequently sent a fax on 24 May 1999 with a detailed information request. Following this request, the Commission sent a letter on 7 June 1999 to the responsible Italian authority, INPS (Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale), requesting that it examined and clarified the rights of the complainant. The complainant was informed thereof on the same day and further provided with a brochure containing information on social security rights. Shortly after, the complainant sent a fax commenting on the content of the brochure sent to him.

The Commission concluded that it was now waiting for the reply from the Italian authority.

The complainant's observations

In his observations, the complainant maintained his complaint. He specifically pointed out the behaviour of the Commission's representation in Rome as unacceptable. The complainant also claimed that he himself had contacted INPS in Italy and had been told that it only deals with pension matters. Furthermore, he never received a reply to his comments on the social security brochure addressed to the Commission.

The complainant requested the Ombudsman to investigate the breakdown of communication between the Commission's offices and claimed that the sickness benefits should be released to him with the help from the Commission instructing the national authorities in Sweden and Italy.

FURTHER INQUIRIES

After careful consideration of the Commission's opinion and the complainant's observations, it appeared that further inquiries were necessary. The Ombudsman therefore asked the Commission to inform him of any reply received from the Italian authorities following its letter of 7 June 1999, or of any other development.

The Commission's further opinion

In its further opinion, the Commission explained that following the letter of 7 June 1999 to INPS, the complainant's file had been discussed by the relevant unit of DG Employment and Social Affairs together with representatives of the Italian Government at two meetings of the Administrative Commission on Social Security for Migrant Workers held on 5 and 6 October and 9 and 10 December 1999. These contacts were made in order to clarify the rights that the complainant enjoyed under national law. The Commission explained that in any event, the complainant was not entitled to reimbursement of health care costs incurred in Greece or Sweden under Community law since Regulation 1408/71/EEC did not cover students at the time.

The Commission stated that this did not rule out entitlement under national law, but in the present case, it appeared that only employees were entitled to sickness benefits on the grounds of incapacity to work. Students were not covered by these benefits.

The Commission concluded that it was its view that Community law had not been breached in this case and it would therefore not continue dealing with the file.

The Commission regretted that it had not been more explicit in the replies that it gave the complainant following the dispatch of the brochure on social security rights. Although the general information contained in the brochure had already been communicated to the complainant over the phone, the Commission acknowledged that a more formal contact confirming that Community law had not been infringed could have been appropriate.

Finally, regarding the actions of the Eurojus officer at the Commission's representation in Rome, the Commission stated that the role of the Eurojus officer had been clearly explained to the complainant in a telephone conversation. Nevertheless, the Commission acknowledged that a written confirmation thereof could have clarified the situation.

The complainant's further observations

The Commission's further opinion was forwarded to the complainant for comments. No such comments appear to have been received from the complainant.

THE DECISION

1 The Commission's alleged failure to act

1.1 The complainant, an Italian citizen living in Sweden, who had suffered a severe accident in Greece, contacted the Commission (the Eurojus officers at its representations in Stockholm and Rome and DG Employment and Social Affairs) to inquire into his social security rights and to ask for assistance in contacting the responsible national authorities. The complainant stated that the Commission failed to help him, and he was left without money for several months. The complainant alleged that he would not have been put in this situation if the Commission had tried to solve the matter and he claimed that the Commission should intervene in order to solve the situation.

1.2 The Commission explained the contacts it had had with the Italian authorities in order to solve the matter. It was revealed that the complainant, being a student at the time of the accident, did not enjoy the right to sickness benefits under Italian law and further that there was no Community law applicable at that time. The Commission considered that there was no breach of Community law. It regretted that no formal reply had been sent to the complainant informing him about the outcome of its investigation.

1.3 As regards the role of the Eurojus officer at the Commission's representations in the Member States, the Ombudsman points out that their task is to give free legal advice to EU citizens concerning their rights under Community law. It is not the role of the Eurojus officer to represent or to act as a lawyer for the citizens. It is against this background that the Ombudsman notes that the complainant received written replies to his information requests from the Eurojus officer at the Commission's representation in Stockholm on 4 November 1998 and on 28 January 1999. As regards the complainants letter to the Eurojus officer at the Commission's representation in Rome, no written reply was issued by that officer, but the complainant was advised over the phone.

1.4 On 24 May 1999, the complainant wrote to the Commission, Employment and Social Affairs DG, and requested it to intervene to solve the situation. On 7 June 1999, the Commission contacted the responsible Italian authority, INPS, and the complainant was informed thereof on the same day. Following this contact, the Commission held two meetings with representatives of the Italian Government during which the complainant's file was discussed. The Commission found that under Italian law, the complainant being a student at that time, did not enjoy the right to receive sickness benefits and further that on the Community level, there was no protection for students at that time. The Commission also came to the conclusion that there was no breach of Community law.

1.5 In relation to the contacts between the complainant and the Commission's representations in Stockholm and Rome, the Ombudsman notes that the Eurojus officers gave advice to the complainant. Regarding the contacts with the Commission's Employment and Social Affairs DG, the Commission replied to the complainant and moreover acted upon his request. Against this background the Ombudsman considers that the Commission acted in accordance with principles of good administration in its contacts with the complainant. The Ombudsman therefore finds that there was no maladministration on behalf of the Commission.

2 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Commission. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The President of the Commission will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN