The European Ombudsman
Jacob Söderman

005355

Strasbourg, 5-03-1999

Mr Philip Sargent
27 Greville Road
UK-Cambridge
CB1 3QJ

Decision on complaint 942/98/ME against the European Commission

Dear Mr Sargent,

On 15 September 1998, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman. In your complaint you alleged that the European Commission, Directorate-General for the Joint Research Centre failed to provide you with information about your employment conditions and your social security at the Joint Research Centre, despite your repeated requests over a long period of time.

On 28 September 1998, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission. On 4 January 1999, the Commission sent its opinion and I forwarded it to you on 14 January 1999 with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished On 20 January 1999, I again forwarded the opinion, this time to your new address. On 30 January 1999, you sent your observations on the Commission's opinion. On 12 October 1998 and 7 January 1999 you sent me further information relating to your complaint.

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

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant the relevant facts were as follows: The complainant was a viskting scientist at the European Commission, Directorate-General for the Joint Research Centre (hereafter called JRC) since 1 December 1997. Since September 1997 he had tried to get information from the JRC regarding standard employment terms and conditions and in particular his rights in relation to social security cover. He claimed that the JRC refused for one year to provide him with the requested information.

Because the Commission did not provide any social security cover to the complainant, he had to pay for a health insurance which he claimed did not give him as good a level of cover as the standard Italian health scheme.

The complainant claimed full social security payment since 1 December 1997 and restitution of payment of health insurance which he should not have had to pay.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion the Commission referred to the contract of the complainant which he signed on 24 November 1997, marking it "Read and approved". Annexed to his contract were a copy of the Administrative Guidelines applicable to scientists visiting the JRC ("the Guidelines"). According to the contract letter and in accordance with his status of visiting scientist, the complainant enjoyed only the rights laid down in the Guidelines. He was, therefore, not covered by the Staff Regulations of Officials or the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities.

In order to clarify the complainant's request the Commission further pointed out that Article 1 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants states:

"The conditions of employment shall apply to servants engaged under contract by the Communities. Such sewants shall be

temporary staff

auxiliary staff

local staff

special advisers. "

According to the Commission visiting scientists were not a "other servants" within the meaning of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants because they were not mentioned in Article 1 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants.

Before the complainant started at the JRC he provided proof of membership of a sickness and accident insurance scheme which every visiting scientist, according to the contract letter and Article 6 of the Guidelines had to supply. The Commission further stated that it could not be held responsible for differences in health insurance cover between the Member States. The Commission also stated that the allowance referred to in Article 2 of the Guidelines was deemed to cover everything and that it was up to visiting scientists to provide their own social security cover. Finally, the Commission rejected the claim that it failed or refused to provide the complainant with information and it referred to the considerable volume of correspondence with the cornplainant.

The complainant's observations

In his observations the complainant stated that the Commission's opinion informed him about new facts in relation to his complaint. Firstly, the Commission made clear that the only rights the complainant enjoyed were those laid down in the Guidelines. The complainant found this point irrelevant since his questions did not concern the rights accorded by the Commission, but rather the social rights accorded by the Italian state. Secondly, the Commission stated that the Conditions of Employment explicitly lists those people who are considered "servants" and this does not include visiting scientists. The complainant put forward that it was exactly the information he asked the JRC for but it did not provide him with this information. He claimed that this constituted a failure to provide information on the part of the JRC. Finally, the Commission stated that the allowance was deemed to cover everything and that it was up to the visiting scientists to provide their own social security cover. However, the complainant stated that this contradicts what the JRC told him. He further put forward that this was a legal interpretation and should be backed up by a statement of a certified lawyer.

The complainant, therefore, stated that the Commission refused or failed to provide him with information. He also put forward that the considerable volume of correspondence between him and the JRC is not proof that the Commission answered to his requests. The complainant asked the Ombudsman to require that the Commission admits its culpability.

THE DECISION

The complainant's request for a social security scheme
1. The complainant complained about the fact that he had been paying for his own social security cover and he claimed full social security payment from the Commission for the period when he was a visiting scientist at the JRC.
2. According to the contract letter the complainant, being a visiting scientist, only enjoyed the rights laid down in the Administrative Guidelines applicable to scientists visiting the JRC ("the Guidelines") which were annexed to the contract. The contract letter and Article 6 of the Guidelines stated that visiting scientists shall provide proof of membership of a sickness and accident insurance scheme. Article 6 of the Guidelines further stated that in cases where the visiting scientist proves that he cannot be covered by a sickness and accident insurance scheme, the Commission may exceptionally cover for these risks. In such a case, the amount of the insurance premium shall be deducted from the allowance provided for in Article 2 [of the Guidelines]. The fact that the complainant had to pay for his own social security cover, therefore, appears to be in accordance with the contract letter, signed by the complainant, and the Guidelines.
3. In view of these findings, there appears to be no maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint.
Lack or refusal of information
1. The complainant claimed that the Comrmsaon did not provide him with information concerning standard employment terms and conditions and in particular information about his rights m relation to social security cover.
2. Information concerning employment conditions and social security cover were to be found in the Guidelines, which were annexed to the complainants contract letter. The Commission could of course had underlined this in its response to the complainant.
3. In view of these findings, there appears to be no maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint.
Conclusion

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

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

Yours sincerely,

{signature}

Jacob Soderman