* Admissibility date reflects the date the case was officially registered. All other dates pertain to the date in which a stage was completed.
Case Description
Complaint
The complainant alleges to have submitted a contribution to the EIB Prize within the set deadlines, with the provision that the required nomination by his University Professor for his nomination would follow. The complainant alleges that, at various instances, he submitted his contribution electronically but that he never received an adequate reply and that the rejection of his paper, which was finally received by the EIB Institute, albeit after the deadline, was unjustified. The complainant further claims that his nomination for the EIB Prize competition by his University Professor was equally badly handled, possibly by the EIB IT services and that his late submission of his paper and the missing nomination by his University Professor was not his fault.
EIB-CM Action
The EIB Complaints Mechanism (EIB-CM) acknowledged receipt of the Complainants' complaint on 14 August 2013, and informed the complainant that the EIB-CM was carrying out a review of the complaint, indicating the date by which he might expect to receive an official reply from the EIB-CM. Due to time required to contact the complainant and the workload of the EIB-CM and in line with article 11.10.02 of the EIB Complaints Mechanism Policy, the deadline was extended in a further letter to the complainant on 10 October 2013.
On 2 and on 3 October the EIB-CM attempted to establish a contact by telephone with the complainant in order to update him on the complaint handling and to gain further information on a personal basis. The complainant declined by email to enter into telephonic contact, claiming chronic “Tinnitus” making pain-free telephone conversations impossible.
The EIB-CM reviewed the correspondence of the complainant with the EIB Institute and the log of incoming mails into the EIB IT system. The information collected was considered sufficient to form an opinion on the allegations advanced by the complainant and assess whether maladministration by the EIB had occurred. The key findings and conclusions are presented in the Conclusions Report.
Conclusions
The EIB-CM found no grounds for the complainant’s allegations that the EIB IT systems have failed to deliver or withheld his mails, blocking his timely nomination by the Professor or his submission of his paper for the EIB Prize competition. The EIB also found no grounds for admitting maladministration by the EIB Institute in not allowing the complainant to compete in the EIB Prize competition.