Sprendimas byloje 2350/2007/RT - Kaltinimai dėl nesurengtų mokymų, kurių prašė skundo pareiškėja, ir neužtikrinto tinkamo elgesio su ja stažuotės metu

THE BACKGROUND TO THE COMPLAINT

1. On 6 September 2006, the European Parliament adopted a decision implementing a Pilot traineeship programme for persons with disabilities ('the Pilot programme'). It was coordinated by a team of officials from the services of three different Directorates-General (DGs) within Parliament: the Equal Opportunities and Diversity Unit (EODU), the Traineeship Office (TO) and the Unit for Prevention and Well-being at Work (UPWB). The Pilot programme was launched in March 2007.

2. Between 15 September and 15 October 2006, Parliament published on its website (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/) a call for applications for the above Pilot programme. The following documents were published on the website, together with the text of the call:

• a description of the Pilot programme;
• the Internal rules governing traineeships and study visits in the Secretariat of the European Parliament;
• the Code of good practice for the employment of people with disabilities, and
• a sample of the application form and an online application form.

3. The complainant submitted an online application, which contained a box for applicants to indicate whether they had a disability. The complainant ticked that box. She also indicated her preferences for the following DGs within Parliament: the DG for the Presidency, the DG for External Policies (DG EXPO) and the Legal Service. The complainant indicated Brussels as her first choice for completing the traineeship and Strasbourg as her second.

4. On 26 October 2006, Parliament's Traineeship Office asked the complainant via e-mail to provide it "with information about the disability, and any specific adaptation or assistance [she] might need." The e-mail further clarified that "any information about [the complainant's] disability will only be used within the Secretariat of the European Parliament and only for the purpose of providing reasonable accommodation, should [the complainant] be selected."

5. On the same day, the complainant sent the requested information. She explained that "the most common obstacles that [she] usually meets are steps and stairs at buildings, at means of transport and even along the road. She also meets obstacles inside buildings. These obstacles consist of narrow doors, under 70 cm width, narrow rooms in which [she did not have] enough space to handle [her] wheelchair, narrow toilets or inaccessible ones for [her] wheelchair". She pointed out that she needed accessible means of transportation and that "the place of work should be also adapted: without steps, with access to the toilet and enough room for [her] wheelchair." The complainant also stated that she would need an accessible flat, with sufficient space to allow her to move around in her wheelchair. She emphasised that "[she] cannot lean on her legs at all and [she] cannot feel them."

6. The complainant was selected to take part in the Pilot programme and the traineeship offer was sent to her. She was assigned to DG EXPO, Subcommittee on Human Rights, in Brussels.

7. The complainant accepted the traineeship offer. The traineeship started on 1 March 2007 and ended on 31 July 2007.

THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE INQUIRY

8. In her original complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the European Parliament failed:

(1) to provide her with the training for which she had applied; and

(2) to ensure that she was treated appropriately during her traineeship.

9. Although the complainant submitted a new allegation and claim[1] during the course of the present inquiry, the Ombudsman decided to limit its scope to the above, original allegation. The Ombudsman recalls that he can only deal with allegations/claims about which complainants have made prior administrative approaches to the institutions concerned. The complainant could submit a new complaint relating to her new allegation and claim, after having made prior administrative approaches to Parliament.

THE INQUIRY

10. The inquiry was opened on 9 October 2007. On 31 January 2008, Parliament requested an extension to the deadline to submit its opinion on the complaint until 29 February 2008. Parliament sent its opinion on 28 February 2008, which was forwarded to the complainant for her observations. She sent her observations on 17 April 2008.

11. On 29 May 2008, the Ombudsman asked Parliament for further information in relation to the present case. Parliament sent its reply on 21 July 2008. This reply was forwarded to the complainant with an invitation to make observations, which she sent on 11 August 2008.

12. On 26 November 2008, the Ombudsman addressed a draft recommendation to Parliament, which sent its detailed opinion on the draft recommendation on 11 March 2009. On 6 April 2009, the complainant made her observations on Parliament's detailed opinion.

THE OMBUDSMAN'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

A. Parliament's alleged failure to provide the complainant with the kind of training for which she applied

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

13. In support of the above allegation, the complainant argued that Parliament did not inform her, before her arrival in Brussels, that her tasks would be "checking the accessibility of buildings, writing reports for the EODU or taking part in meetings related to disability", instead of working in the Secretariat of the Subcommittee on Human Rights to which she was assigned.

14. In its opinion, Parliament stated that there was a high number of applicants for the 'standard' paid traineeship. By applying for the 'special' Pilot programme, the complainant increased her chance of obtaining a traineeship within the Parliament (ten candidates were selected for the Pilot programme for the period March - July 2007).

15. Furthermore, Parliament underlined that the complainant voluntarily chose to apply for the Pilot programme. Even though the existence of a disability was one of the conditions of eligibility for the programme, candidates were selected on the basis of their skills to best suit the job profile.

16. On 19 December 2006, the EODU informed the complainant by telephone that she had been selected for a traineeship under the Pilot programme. This information was confirmed by an e-mail sent from the mailbox of the said Pilot programme. The complainant accepted the offer.

17. Parliament pointed out that the complainant performed "various tasks" within the Subcommittee on Human Rights, namely, "she drafted notes, minor reports and letters; she searched for background information and news articles; she attended meetings and provided summaries." In her traineeship report, the complainant assessed most of the aspects of her work within Parliament as "satisfactory".

The Ombudsman's assessment leading to a draft recommendation (first aspect)

18. It appeared from Parliament's opinion that, at the time of the present complaint, there were two traineeship programmes within Parliament: (i) the 'standard' programme and (ii) the 'special' Pilot programme for people with disabilities.

19. The complainant argued that, at the beginning of her traineeship, Parliament asked her to "check door by door, garage by garage to find an easy way of getting inside and to provide them with reports to prepare everything for  [future] trainees with disabilities". Parliament did not contest this fact.

20. However, when the complainant applied for the traineeship, she was not aware that she would be requested to carry out the above-mentioned specific duties during her traineeship.

21. In this regard, the website referring to the Pilot programme did not make any reference to such duties. The potential candidates could, therefore, reasonably expect that the duties of trainees with disabilities would be the same as those of trainees completing the 'standard' traineeship.

22. Even if the complainant had known of Parliament's decision implementing the Pilot programme, the said decision only contained the provision that trainees were required to submit a final report on their traineeship, in order to evaluate their experience and give their views on the programme[2]. No more precise information was given concerning the fact that such reports would focus on the facilities available for disabled people, or that there would be specific duties reserved for disabled trainees. To add to this, the complainant's access to the above decision was difficult because the website referring to the Pilot programme did not contain a link to it.

23. Furthermore, the traineeship offer and the admission letter which the complainant received not only failed to detail the specific duties in question, but also made no mention whatsoever of the Pilot programme. They only made references to the 'standard' traineeship programme.

24. In light of the above, the complainant could legitimately believe that she had been accepted for a traineeship programme in which her duties would be the same as the duties of the trainees accepted under the standard traineeship programme.

25. By failing to explain clearly to the complainant, before she accepted the traineeship offer, that her duties within the Pilot programme would be, such as those detailed in paragraph 19 above, Parliament misled her. This was a first instance of maladministration.

26. In light of the above, the Ombudsman made a draft recommendation to Parliament concerning its failure to explain clearly to the complainant, before she accepted the traineeship offer, the nature of her duties within the Pilot programme. This draft recommendation is presented in paragraph 48 below, under the heading "Draft recommendation".

B. Parliament's alleged failure to ensure that the complainant was treated appropriately during her traineeship within the European Parliament

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

27. The complainant pointed out that she faced considerable accessibility problems upon her arrival and during her stay in Brussels. In this regard, she referred to the poor accessibility of Parliament's premises, as well as the lack of accessible transport facilities and the difficulties she experienced in finding a flat adapted to her needs in Brussels. She also underlined the insufficient support she had received from Parliament's services, in particular from the medical service and the EODU. She had to participate in EODU meetings and was asked to perform special duties, as described in paragraph 17 above. Parliament had also published photos of her in her wheelchair and asked her to give interviews.

28. As regards her work as a trainee, the Subcommittee on Human Rights treated her as "someone sent there by the EODU." She emphasised that she did not want to be offered a traineeship because of her disability or for reasons related to it. She concluded that: "[she] was used by the service of Equal opportunities for propaganda without having their support. By no means had [she] come here to be the 'disabled' of the European Parliament. [She] came here to forget about the word "disabled" and to look for ways of normal life among normal people. From this point of view, [she] was very much disappointed."

29. In its opinion, Parliament explained that its services checked the accessibility of the ATRIUM building (where the complainant was allocated) and made the necessary and feasible adaptations before her arrival. Nevertheless, the institution must follow rigid administrative procedures and "it was not easy to find timely ad hoc solutions." Following the complainant's request for a special room to rest, the medical service offered to make a room with a bed available to her. The photos on which the complainant appeared were taken by an official Parliament photographer during a seminar dealing with disability policy, which she had chosen to attend.

30. As regards the accessibility problems faced by the complainant upon her arrival in Brussels, Parliament pointed out that trainees remained primarily responsible for finding accommodation, signing contracts and finding suitable routes for their daily commute to and from work. However, in the framework of the Pilot programme, Parliament's services had "actively" sought to provide the trainees with facilities outside their workplace. Six weeks before the end of the traineeship period, Parliament received a positive response from the Brussels City administration that the complainant could use the City transport provided for disabled persons. However, she declined that offer. Nevertheless, she was able to come to work without having to use public transport, given that she had found accommodation close to Parliament's premises.

31. Given the difficulties that trainees with disabilities may encounter, the complainant's monthly scholarship was supplemented with a 'disability allowance'. She therefore received approximately EUR 2 240 per month.

The Ombudsman's assessment leading to a draft recommendation (second aspect)

32. The Ombudsman first noted that, on Parliament's request, the complainant submitted a detailed description of her needs and problems relating to her disability. In her communication on this matter, she explained the common obstacles that she usually experienced. These included steps, narrow doors, inaccessible toilets, insufficient space for her wheelchair, and inaccessible means of transportation (see paragraph 5 above).

33. The Ombudsman also pointed out that, in its opinion, Parliament itself stated that, in 2003, it had participated in a comprehensive accessibility audit of all the EU institutions. Following this audit, an Interservice Working Group (IWC) was set up in order to implement the audit's recommendations and find solutions to improve the accessibility of Parliament's premises. The report was submitted by the IWC in September 2006, that is to say, during the same month when the Pilot programme was launched. It indicated that the studies concerning the accessibility of the ATRIUM building, where the complainant carried out her traineeship, would be made in late 2006/early 2007 and that the construction works were scheduled for 2007/ 2008.

34. In light of the above, the Ombudsman considered that Parliament knew that most of its premises, in particular the ATRIUM building, were inappropriate for the complainant's condition. The building required extensive work, which would not be completed before the complainant started her traineeship. Additionally, Parliament was aware of the complainant's detailed needs well in advance of her commencing the traineeship.

35. The question therefore arose as to why Parliament invited the complainant to become a trainee and to work in that building when it knew that the infrastructure in its premises in Brussels did not at all meet her needs. One could also legitimately question the sense and the true purpose behind Parliament's asking the trainee to go and check every door and every corridor in that building to find out potential problems for disabled people, which were indeed already known to it.

36. The complainant explained that, when in Parliament, she had been hit by narrow revolving doors; she had to make detours to find accessible entrances and had to give explanations each time she used the MEPs' corridor, in which her wheelchair could enter (while in other corridors it could not). This was in spite of the fact that she had submitted "a criminal record"[3] in order to obtain a special badge that would allow her to use the MEPs' corridor (the badge was in fact never provided). She also couldn't find appropriate toilets and some conference rooms were inaccessible to her. Since she had experienced problems in using the canteen, Parliament had suggested that a fireman assist her. The complainant also stated that there was no place to rest near her office and access to the medical service was too far away.

37. The complainant further pointed out that she had had problems finding an accessible apartment close to Parliament and could not use the Brussels City minibus for disabled persons.

38. All the above negative experiences could have been avoided. Parliament could reasonably have asked the complainant to work in a part of the building where there were no revolving doors and close to a toilet for persons with disabilities. It could have provided the complainant with a special badge to allow her to use the MEPs' canteen, instead of having to ask a fireman to accompany her in the other canteen. It would also have been objectively possible to provide a special room for her to rest and sensitise the medical service that it needed to help her. All these practical measures could have been, but were not implemented.

39. It was also reasonable to expect that Parliament's services could have checked, before her arrival, whether some apartments from the list it had prepared were suitable or not for people in wheelchairs. It could have informed the complainant of those apartments adapted to her condition, instead of letting her visit a number of unsuitable apartments on her own. Parliament could also have checked the conditions for using the City of Brussels minibus (the bus was apparently reserved for permanent residents) and could have asked the Brussels authorities for a special waiver from these conditions before the complainant's arrival. The Ombudsman considered that most, if not all, of these problems could have been avoided. The additional payment Parliament gave the complainant, although well intentioned, ultimately did not resolve all of her problems.

40. Parliament did not take any of the measures needed to eliminate the above problems, although it could have done so. Moreover, as mentioned in paragraph 36 above, it is legitimate to question whether Parliament really did intend for the complainant to fulfil the normal duties of other trainees under the standard training programme or, as the complainant feels, to use her merely to test the accessibility of its buildings.

41. The complainant referred to the interviews she was asked to give and to photos taken of her in her wheelchair, which were published in the EP Newshound.  The Ombudsman thus considered that the complainant's and her colleagues' presence in Parliament could have been dealt with more discreetly. The use of photos highlighting the complainant's disability could have strengthened her conviction that she was selected for the traineeship because of her disability and diminished her self confidence. The Ombudsman failed to see why the fact that she voluntarily attended a public seminar could be invoked by Parliament to justify the publicity given to her photo, without asking for her explicit consent.

42. The complainant emphasised that the Subcommittee on Human Rights, to which she was officially assigned, only asked her about her special duties under the Pilot programme and "treated her as being imposed by the EODU". In its opinion, Parliament neither challenged this statement nor provided a reasonable explanation for this fact[4]. The Ombudsman considered that, even if the complainant had been asked by the Subcommittee on Human Rights to perform some substantive tasks relating to its work, she could not have reasonably devoted herself to such substantive matters. Indeed, she would have had too little time to do so if she also had to check the accessibility problems of an obviously inadequate building. It is therefore perfectly understandable that the complainant, who is a fully qualified lawyer wanting to be appreciated for her own merits regardless of her disability, felt very disappointed with the content of her traineeship as well.

43. The Ombudsman agrees that the recruitment for such a programme could be differentiated from the standard programme in order to facilitate the participation of people with disabilities. However, the duties of the trainees with disabilities and the content of the programme should, as far as possible, be the same as that of trainees without disabilities. It should certainly not be 'special', or the object of particular publicity campaigns, even if they are only internal to the institution. Disabled persons do not wish to feel 'special' in their jobs. As the complainant pointed out, in her correspondence with Parliament, when accepting the traineeship offer, she was committed to an independent life. Later, in her report on the traineeship she stated with bitterness that "[she] came here to forget about the word disabled and to look for ways of normal life among normal people. [She] was very much disappointed."

44. On the basis of the evidence available to him, the Ombudsman considered that Parliament failed to offer the complainant the same training possibilities as in the normal programme. By considerably limiting the complainant's duties as a trainee to checking, on the basis of her own negative experiences, whether one of Parliament's buildings was ready to receive further employees/trainees with disabilities, Parliament acted unfairly and, in casu, hurt the complainant's dignity. Moreover, although in the present case the personal commitment of some of Parliament's officials could not be ignored and indeed deserved praise, the Ombudsman stressed that the implementation of the Pilot programme should have occurred within Parliament's institutional framework. If more thorough measures had been taken by Parliament, this would have avoided the need for certain devoted officials having to act at very short notice in order to help the complainant.

45. This was a second instance of maladministration. The Ombudsman made a draft recommendation to Parliament concerning its failure to act fairly and to offer the complainant the same training possibilities as in the standard programme. This draft recommendation is presented in in paragraph 48 below, under the heading "Draft recommendation".

46. The Ombudsman was aware that the problems identified in the framework of this inquiry occurred in what appears to have been the first action of the Pilot Project which started at that time. He therefore could not exclude that at least part of the problems identified in this inquiry might already have been considered and that the relevant measures have already been taken for future action. In this respect, the Ombudsman noted both Parliament's "regrets for any shortcomings in the practical implementation of the Pilot phase and the impact these may have had on the complainant's experience", as well as its commitment to improving the programme and to continuing with these positive measures.

47. Finally, the Ombudsman noted with displeasure that Parliament stated that "considering the high number of applicants for the standard paid traineeship schemes ... applying for the Pilot programme did in fact give [the complainant] more chances of obtaining a traineeship in the European Parliament." This could only be objectively interpreted as wanting to express the view that the complainant should consider herself lucky to have been awarded a traineeship in the first place, thanks to her disability. Parliament could not ignore that the opinions it submits in the framework of the Ombudsman's inquiries were sent to the complainants for observations. Such a statement in response to an allegation of unfair treatment could only be considered as deeply offensive and totally unacceptable. It would only contribute further to the complainant's disappointment and understandable indignation and sense of injury. The Ombudsman deplored what he preferred to consider as a regrettable and clumsy lack of care and precision on the part of Parliament when drafting its opinion on the complaint. He trusted that, in its answer to the draft recommendation, Parliament would specifically deal with and rectify this very important issue.

Draft recommendation

48. In view of the above considerations, the Ombudsman made the following draft recommendation to Parliament, in accordance with Article 3 (6) of his Statute:

"Parliament should offer to the complainant its deepest and sincerest apologies.

Parliament should also report on the measures that it has taken or intends to take with an eye to correcting the shortcomings identified by the Ombudsman in his inquiry."

The arguments presented to the Ombudsman after his draft recommendation

49. First, Parliament clarified its position in relation to certain points of the draft recommendation.

50. It recalled that the Pilot Programme is part of the paid 'standard' Robert Schuman traineeship scheme but is financed by a separate budget line. Nevertheless, it pointed out that there is no difference regarding the content of the traineeship and the kind of tasks allocated to trainees.

51. As regards the "disability tasks", referred to by the complainant in her observations, Parliament explained that these were part of the traineeship's monitoring process. They aimed to ensure the well being of trainees themselves, as well as to allow for the final assessment of the traineeship programme to take place. The trainees who took part in the Pilot Programme, including the complainant, were informed accordingly. Moreover, this information was available on Parliament's website at the time when the Pilot programme was launched.

52. Parliament stated that the complainant was only asked to check, at the beginning of her traineeship, the accessibility of the building where she would work (ATRIUM building), in order to find the best "individual route" for her and not for any future trainee or employee. As regards the reports submitted to the EODU, this was part of the monitoring and evaluation process of the Pilot programme, as mentioned on Parliament's website.

53. Parliament emphasised that the above-mentioned tasks were not obligatory and not time-consuming. The complainant was offered the kind of training for which she had applied. The traineeship corresponded to the complainant's expectations from a professional point of view.

54. Parliament might have misjudged the appropriateness of some of its premises in Brussels in relation to the specific accessibility requirements of the complainant. However, its services were committed to ensuring the well being of the complainant, to acting fairly and to fully respecting her dignity.

55. Parliament recalled that the Pilot programme was the first positive action measure of its kind in the EU institutions. It presented many challenges, despite the best efforts of several of Parliaments' services and their intensive preparation for the traineeship.

56. Parliament also explained that it could not ask the complainant to work in a part of the building where there were no revolving doors because it would have separated her from her unit. As a result, the complainant's sense of being part of a team would have been adversely affected. Therefore, in order to help the complainant, Parliament suggested that its Security staff open the entrance door for her.

57. Parliament emphasised that its services offered the complainant support in finding suitable accommodation in Brussels and provided her with medical assistance. As regards the use of photos highlighting her disability, Parliament stated that the presence of Parliament's official photographer at the seminar in question was very visible and nobody from the audience raised objections in this respect. The complainant's photo was subsequently removed from the intranet at the complainant's request.

58. In addition, Parliament argued that its statement referring to the fact that "... applying for the Pilot programme did in fact give [the complainant] more chances of obtaining a traineeship in the European Parliament" was misinterpreted. In this respect, it stated that before the Pilot programme was launched, the presence of trainees with disabilities in the institution had been low or practically non-existent. Such positive action is one of the key elements of Parliament's approach to promote the inclusion of persons with disabilities in its Secretariat. The Pilot programme has increased the number of persons with various and visible disabilities who are currently working in Parliament.

59. As regards the measures taken with an eye to correcting the shortcomings identified by the Ombudsman in his inquiry, Parliament stated that, following the Bureau's recommendations of 7 July 2008:

"i) The traineeship programme for people with disabilities [will be] continued. It is expected that 45-47 trainees with disabilities will be recruited by the end of 2009;

ii) Measures have been taken to consolidate the organisational aspects of the programme and to allocate clear responsibilities for its implementation;

iii)  In 2009, [it] intends to recruit (as a pilot project) a 'disability assistant' in Brussels to provide social support and assistance for trainees/contract agents with disabilities according to their individual needs in order to help them achieve as much autonomy as possible, as quickly as possible (assistance upon their arrival in Brussels, search for accessible accommodation, assistance in the workplace and outside Parliament);

iv) A separate budgetary line will cover unforeseen expenditure for trainees with disabilities;

v) A certain number of contract agents with disabilities will be recruited; 6 contract agents have been recruited since the end of 2008 in different DGs;

vi) The feedback given by trainees in the Pilot Programme helped Parliament's services to improve the accessibility of its premises; search for and assessment of accessible accommodation to suit specific needs of trainees with disabilities in Brussels; preparation within the placement services; training courses on disability awareness."

60. Parliament concluded that it was willing to follow the Ombudsman's draft recommendation and reiterated its apologies for the fact that (i) its premises were not fully accessible to the complainant and that (ii) she felt that she had not been treated appropriately during her traineeship. Parliament acknowledged that this may have had a negative impact on her experience in its Secretariat. At the same time, it asked the Ombudsman to reconsider the two instances of maladministration indicated in his draft recommendation.

61. In her observations on the above Parliament's reply, the complainant stated that, during her traineeship, Parliament's services always referred differently to the Pilot Programme and the standard traineeship scheme. In this respect, she stated that the two trainees who worked with her in the Subcommittee on Human Rights and who applied for the standard traineeship programme were never asked "to participate in the meetings of the Disability Group or of the EODU, to check accessibilities of the Parliament's premises or to write reports for EODU".

62. She pointed out that she was only 'formally' given the training for which she applied. In reality, she was asked to perform other tasks which "had nothing in common with her application". In this respect, she reiterated that she was asked to check the accessibility of Parliament's premises. The complainant argued that she was asked to check, among other things, the entrances to all garages. This task was certainly not given to her so that she could find her "individual route" to work. In addition, she was called by the EODU on a weekly basis, and questioned about the accessibility of the buildings, the canteen and the transport. She had to provide reports to the EODU about all the above matters. The complainant emphasised that, contrary to Parliament's opinion in this respect, all these additional tasks were time-consuming indeed.

63. Contrary to Parliament's statement, the complainant pointed out that it also failed to take adequate measures in order to ensure that her traineeship would take place in satisfactory conditions.

64. She concluded that Parliament failed to offer her "its deepest and sincerest apologies" and expressed her hope that the Ombudsman would not reconsider his position regarding the two instances of maladministration. Finally, she requested the Ombudsman to take sanctions against Parliament.

The Ombudsman's assessment after his draft recommendation

65. The Ombudsman first points out that there is nothing in Parliament's response to his draft recommendation that would lead him to conclude that his findings of maladministration were unjustified.  The Ombudsman therefore cannot accept Parliament's request to reconsider those findings.  The Ombudsman nonetheless accepts Parliament's explanation concerning the statement described in paragraph 47.

66. The Ombudsman also welcomes Parliament's explanation, provided in reply to his draft recommendation, concerning the measures that it has taken or intends to take with an eye to correcting the shortcomings he identified. The Ombudsman constantly supports the disability-related employment policy of the institutions and is pleased to note that Parliament is engaging in such positive action for people with disabilities.

67. As regards the second aspect of his draft recommendation, he notes that the complainant did not accept Parliament's apologies. The Ombudsman understands the complainant's disappointment. The apologies presented by the institutions should be sincere, full and meaningful and it is hard to consider them as such, if they do not relate to the institution's wrongdoing identified by the Ombudsman as an instance of maladministration.

68. However, although Parliament's apology to the complainant could have been better formulated, an apology was indeed given, as recommended by the Ombudsman. Furthermore, Parliament has taken steps to correct the shortcomings identified during the inquiry. The Ombudsman, therefore, considers that Parliament has accepted his draft recommendations and that no further action on his part would be useful. In this regard, the Ombudsman points out that he has, in any event, no power to impose sanctions on Parliament, as requested by the complainant.

69. In conclusion, the Ombudsman considers it useful to make the following further remark:

As well as taking action to ensure that disabled people are not denied opportunities by reason of their disability, Parliament and the other EU institutions should also be conscious of the need to respect their dignity. This includes avoiding the impression that employment and analogous opportunities, such as traineeships, have been offered to a disabled person only because of disability and not because of his or merits and qualifications. Failure to act in this way could seriously damage the public image of the European Union.

C. Conclusion

On the basis of his inquiry into this complaint, the Ombudsman closes it with the following conclusion:

No further inquiries are justified in relation to the present complaint.

The complainant and Parliament will be informed of this decision.

FURTHER REMARK

As well as taking action to ensure that disabled people are not denied opportunities by reason of their disability, Parliament and the other EU institutions should also be conscious of the need to respect their dignity.  This includes avoiding the impression that employment and analogous opportunities, such as traineeships, have been offered to a disabled person only because of disability and not because of his or merits and qualifications.  Failure to act in this way could seriously damage the public image of the European Union.

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

Done in Strasbourg on 9 July 2009

---

[1] In her observations on Parliament's detailed opinion to the Ombudsman's draft recommendation, the complainant alleged irregularities such as discrimination in relation to the selection procedures organised by Parliament in view of recruiting people with disabilities as contract agents. She claimed that the Ombudsman should inquire as regards the selection methods used by Parliament to recruit people with disabilities as contract agents.

[2] Article 15(g) of the Decision concerning the 'Traineeships for persons with a disability in the Secretariat of the European Parliament' reads as follows: "Monitoring and evaluation: Trainees, supervisors and other staff members concerned would be asked to evaluate their experience and their perception of the programme. An assessment would be made at the end of the first traineeship period, by the Traineeship Office, in order for any necessary modifications and improvements to be made." (emphasis added)

[3] A certificate issued by the national authorities to prove that a person has not been convicted for any criminal offences.

[4] In its opinion, Parliament simply mentioned that "the complainant performed various tasks: drafting notes, minor reports and letters; searching for background information and news articles; she attended meetings and provided summaries."