Annual report 2002 - EOI

DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY 137
FURTHER INQUIRIES
Request for further information
Having received the Commission’s opinion, further inquiries were considered necessary.
In his letter to the Commission of 12 September 2001, the Ombudsman asked the
Commission to submit an opinion on the complainant’s allegations and claims. Noting that
the Commission did not answer the question as to why the complainant had not received
a reply to his Article 90 complaint, the Ombudsman asked the Commission again to do so.
The Ombudsman also asked the Commission to inform him of whether it had consulted
the JRC’s staff representatives prior to the decision abolishing the transport allowance, as
it seemed that this was not the case. The decision abolishing the allowance in question was
adopted on 27 September 1999 whereas the meeting with the JRC staff representatives
took place two days later, on 29 September 1999.
The Commission’s reply
In its reply, the Commission made the following comments.
Concerning the Article 90 appeal procedure under the Staff Regulations, the Commission
states that the complainant’s complaint under Article 90(2) was not submitted in time, that
is within three months from the decision relating to the latter on behalf of his staff, in that
the decision abolishing the transport allowance was taken on 27 September 1999 whereas
the complainant filed his complaint on 4 April 2000. The Commission stresses that the
lack of reply by the Commission was motivated by the fact that the complainant’s appeal
was inadmissible. The Commission also stresses that this fact does not prejudge in any
way the rights of the complainant. The Commission finally states that in the meantime, it
has simplified the complaints’ procedure under Article 90 with a view to improve the
monitoring of the replies to the complainants.
Regarding the prior consultation of staff at the JRC at Ispra, the Commission clarifies that
prior to the decision adopted on 27 September 1999, it had suspended the transport
allowance with effect from 1 July 1999 whilst waiting for the consultation of the local staff
committee at the JRC on 29 September 1999. The decision only became applicable as at
21 October 1999 with retroactive effect from 1 July 1999. The rotating staff concerned
therefore received their transport allowance up to the end of June 1999. In light of a more
strict control of Community resources imposed by the Community financing authority, the
Commission finally reiterates that in agreement with the Court of Auditors this decision
was inevitable due to the lack of a legal basis for the allowance in question.
THE DECISION
1 Alleged failure to consult staff before abolishing the transport allowance
1.1 The complainant alleges that the transport rules changed without prior consultation of
staff concerned.
1.2 The Commission considers that it informed the staff representatives of the reasons for
the decision during a meeting on 29 September 1999.
1.3 The Ombudsman notes that by decision of 27 September 1999 the Commission withdrew
transport allowance rights granted to a number of officials and servants with a
rotating working schedule at the JRC at Ispra, Italy with retroactive effect as from 1 July
1999, as there was no legal basis for the allowance in question. On 29 September 1999,
that is two days later, the staff representatives were informed about the decision and its
reasons. The Ombudsman finds that the withdrawal of the allowance should have been
done with prior consultation of the staff concerned; that is the staff representatives in the