Annual report 2002 - EOI

DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY 127
2.5 In the present case, the Commission should have replied to the complainant by 20
March 2001. The complainant complained to the Ombudsman on 21 March 2001 and the
Commission replied to the complainant on 29 March 2001, nine days late. The
Ombudsman therefore considers that the Commission appears to have taken adequate
steps to settle this aspect of the complaint and that no further inquiries into this aspect of
the complaint are therefore justified.
3 The termination of the complainant’s temporary contract by the European
Commission
3.1 The complainant alleged that the Commission terminated his temporary contract in
violation of basic procedures laid down by national law, thereby abusing its position of
immunity.
3.2 The European Commission stated that it terminated the complainant ‘s temporary
contract in accordance with Article 47 (2) of the Conditions of Employment of Other
Servants of the European Communities.
3.3 The Ombudsman notes that the complainant worked as a temporary agent in the
European Commission. His employment was therefore governed by the conditions of
employment as set out in the Staff Regulations and Rules applicable to officials and Other
Servants of the European Communities.
3.4 On the basis of the available information, it appears that the Commission terminated
the complainant’s temporary contract in compliance with the rules of the Staff
Regulations, in particular Article 47 (2) of the Conditions of Employment of Other
Servants of the European Communities. The complainant has provided no evidence to
show that the Commission was not entitled to do so.
3.5 The European Ombudsman therefore concludes that there is no maladministration as
regards this aspect of the case.
4 The Commission’s transmission of confidential material to the Ombudsman
4.1 The Commission attached to its complementary opinion a copy of the evaluation
sheet for the complainant’s oral test. It specified that this document was confidential and
should not be forwarded to the complainant.
4.2 As mentioned in the Ombudsman’s Annual Report to the European Parliament for
1998, it is a basic principle of fair procedure that the Ombudsman’s decision on a
complaint cannot take into account information contained in documents provided by one
party, unless the other party has had the chance to respond. The Ombudsman’s decision on
a complaint cannot, therefore, take into account information contained in documents
supplied by the institution or body concerned, unless the complainant has had a chance to
make observations on the documents. Moreover, if the Ombudsman needs to inspect a
confidential document in order to check the accuracy and completeness of the
Commission’s answers, he can exercise his powers to inspect the document concerned
under Art 3 (2) of the Statute of the Ombudsman.
4.3 The Ombudsman will therefore return the evaluation sheet to the Commission and it
does not, therefore, form part of the Ombudsman’s file on the case.
4.4 The Ombudsman has taken the opportunity to inspect the document concerned in
order to check the accuracy of the Commission’s statement in its complementary opinion
that that the members of the Selection Board did not give individual marks or make individual
comments.