European Ombudsman
This complaint was treated as confidential. This document has therefore been anonymised.
Dear Mr X.,
On 2 November 2005, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission, concerning the Commission's decision not to include you among the persons to be recruited as contractual agents.
On 14 December 2005, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 24 February 2006 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. No observations appear to have been received from you.
Please note that, in the beginning of 2007, your case was reassigned to another legal officer, Daniel Koblencz.
I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.
On 30 May 2005, the complainant sat a translation test, organised by the European Commission, with a view to recruiting contractual agents for the Commission's field office in a Member State of the European Union. Altogether, there were five candidates participating in the test. By letter dated 28 July 2005, the Commission informed the complainant that its Committee for the selection of contract agents for the languages of the new Member States had decided not to include him among the persons to be recruited as contractual agents. By e-mail of 1 August 2005, the complainant requested to be provided with his corrected script together with the evaluation sheet of his test. On 13 September 2005, the Commission sent the requested copies of the complainant's test and the evaluators' comments on it.
After having examined the copies, the complainant took the view that the evaluators' comments were unprofessional and discriminatory. He therefore sent to the Commission a letter, dated 25 September 2005, in which he referred to six "error markings" (involving the accuracy of certain translation choices) and made comments on them (including references to dictionaries). He also noted that the evaluators did not seem to be very competent as regards the orthography of the language of the Member State in question, since (i) although they appeared to have marked a specific word as being misspelt, one of the evaluators realised in due course that there was no mistake and added the comment "very good" next to the word in question; and (ii) one evaluator was confused about the correct spelling of another word. In this regard, the complainant advised the evaluator to consult a dictionary in order to verify the correct spelling. Finally, the complainant took the view that both evaluators seemed to be more in favour of literal translation, which showed that they were not familiar with translation theory. In light of the above, the complainant expressed doubts about the qualifications and the professionalism of the evaluators, as well as of their objectivity. For these reasons, he asked for a new correction of his test by a university lecturer with a Ph.D. in the language of the Member State in question.
In his reply of 4 October 2005, the Chairman of the Committee for the selection of contract agents ("the Chairman") said that "[t]he carrying out and further handling of the translation tests fulfil the criteria of anonymity, equal treatment, independent correction and far-reaching transparency". The Chairman also referred the complainant, for further details on the procedure followed, to his letter of 10 August 2005(1). Moreover, he emphasised that he had "full confidence in the proven competence and integrity of the translators in the ˙[...] department who corrected [the complainant's] test," and that "[a] correction outside the Commission services [wa]s not justified and not foreseen in the context of [the] selection procedure."
In his complaint to the European Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Commission failed properly to reply to his letter of 25 September 2005. The complainant asked the Ombudsman to check whether there had been irregularities in the assessment of his translation test.
By letter of 14 December 2005, the Ombudsman informed the complainant that it was not his role to substitute his judgement for that of the persons responsible for the assessment of the complainant's translation test and that, therefore, his inquiry into the present complaint was limited to the above allegation.
In its opinion, the Commission first recalled the facts of the case by explaining that the complainant took part in a translation test organised in a Member State of the European Union for possible recruitment as a contract agent in the field office of the Directorate-General for Translation ("DG Translation"). Altogether, five candidates participated in the tests and all of them were given 45 minutes without a dictionary for the translation test. The translation tests, which were anonymous and identifiable only by a number, were then sent to the relevant Language Department in Luxembourg for correction, and were corrected independently by two translators. On 27 July 2005, the Language Department communicated the test results to the Human Resource Unit (Unit C.01) of DG Translation anonymously. To find out which number corresponded to which candidate, the Unit contacted the field office in the Member State in question, which revealed the names of the candidates. On 28 July 2005, the candidates were informed about the outcome of the test. Two candidates, including the complainant, failed the test.
On 1 August 2005, the complainant sent an e-mail to the Commission and requested to be provided with the corrected scripts with the evaluators' comments, and with the reasons for the Commission's decision not to include him among the persons to be recruited as contract agents. The complainant also expressed his intention to complain to the Ombudsman.
On 10 August 2005, the Commission replied to the complainant's e-mail and explained that, in view of the Commission's recruitment needs for the Field Office in the Member State in question, it had decided to invite only the three candidates with the highest notes in the translation test to an interview in Brussels. The complainant, whose mark on the translation was 10 out of 20, had not been amongst these candidates. The two evaluators in the relevant Language Department in Luxembourg who revised the complainant's translation both reached this result independently.
Furthermore, on 13 September 2005, the Commission forwarded to the complainant his corrected script with the evaluators' comments.
On 25 September 2005, the complainant sent a second letter of complaint to the Commission, to which it replied on 4 October 2005.
On the substance of the complaint, the Commission first recalled that the complainant's letter of 25 September 2005 raised several points concerning aspects of the language of the Member State in question and questioned the competence and integrity of the Commission's translators. The complainant's specific request was to have his test corrected by a university lecturer with a Ph.D. in the language in question. The Commission further recalled that it did not find it appropriate to reply, in its letter of 4 October 2005, to the complainant's points concerning the alleged errors of interpretation of certain words in the language in question or the evaluators' competence and integrity. The Commission found that it was sufficient to assure the complainant that the handling of the tests of all candidates had been carried out in a correct manner and in accordance with the applicable procedures. The Commission therefore rejected the complainant's request for a further correction of his translation test by someone outside the Commission's services. Furthermore, the Commission, in its reply of 10 August 2005, had already provided the complainant with details about how the selection procedure had been carried out. The Commission could not agree with the complainant's allegation that its reply of 4 October 2005 was degrading and discriminatory, and declared that it was a statement of facts written in a neutral tone that contained nothing that could be considered discriminatory. Moreover, the complainant's request was treated in the same way as would be a request from any other candidate.
The Commission concluded its opinion by stating that it considered its reply of 4 October 2005 to be sufficiently clear and reasoned, particularly in view of the contents of the earlier correspondence with the complainant. The Commission added that it had shown "far-reaching transparency" in all its dealings with the complainant.
No observations were received from the complainant by the date set for this purpose.
On 27 February 2007, the Ombudsman's services contacted the complaint by telephone in relation to a possible friendly solution proposal in this case. The complainant stated that he would like the Ombudsman to close the case.
1.1 The complainant alleged that the Commission had failed properly to reply to his letter of 25 September 2005. In this letter, the complainant (i) referred to six "error markings" (involving the accuracy of certain translation choices) and made comments on them (including references to dictionaries); (ii) referred to the correct spelling of two words and the relevant indications/comments made by the evaluators; (iii) argued that both evaluators appeared to favour literal translation, which was not justified; (iv) in light of the above, expressed doubts about and, in essence, challenged the qualifications and the professionalism of the evaluators; (v) for the same reasons, also expressed doubts about their objectivity; and (vi) requested a new correction of his test by a university lecturer with a Ph.D. in the language in question.
The Ombudsman considers that, in view of its content, the complainant’s letter of 25 September 2005 was a complaint and was clearly perceived by the Commission as such. Indeed, the Chairman began his reply-letter of 4 October 2005 by stating "I refer to your letter of complaint dated 25 September 2005." The Ombudsman also considers that this complaint raised, in a sufficiently precise way, a number of points as regards the propriety of the evaluators' assessment of the complainant's performance and, in essence, of the reasoning for the Commission's decision not to recruit him. On the basis of these points, the complainant also contested, in essence, the qualifications and the professionalism of the evaluators, as well as of their objectivity.
In its opinion on the complaint, the Commission stated that it had not found it appropriate to reply, in its letter of 4 October 2005, to the above-mentioned points made by the complainant. The Commission had found that it was sufficient to assure the complainant that the handling of the tests of all candidates had been carried out in a correct manner and in accordance with the applicable procedures.
1.2 The Ombudsman, first, notes that principles of good administration, reflected in points 4 and 6 of the Commission's Code of Good Administrative Behaviour(2) require that the Commission, when it receives a complaint similar to the complainant's letter of 25 September 2005, either address adequately the matters raised by the complainant or invoke valid and adequate grounds for not doing so.
1.3 The Ombudsman takes the view that, in the present case, the Commission did not address in its reply of 4 October 2005 the parts of the complainant's complaint of 25 September 2005 referred to above as points (i), (ii) and (iii). The same is true of its opinion on the present complaint to the Ombudsman. Moreover, the Commission has not provided valid and adequate grounds for its above omission. The Commission has merely indicated that it did not find it "appropriate" to reply to these points raised by the complainant and that it was sufficient to assure the complainant, through a statement formulated only in general terms, that the handling of the tests of all candidates had been carried out in a correct manner. Under these circumstances, the Ombudsman takes the view that the Commission has not complied with the above-mentioned requirement, as regards points (i), (ii) and (iii) of the complainant's letter of 25 September 2005. This constitutes an instance of maladministration.
1.4 With respect to the part of the complainant's letter of 25 September 2005 referred to above as point (iv), the Chairman simply stated, in his letter of 4 October 2005, that he had full confidence in the proven competence of the evaluators. Taking into account the observations in point 1.3 above and the fact that the Commission did not provide any specific information about the qualifications of the evaluators, the Ombudsman takes the view that the Commission failed to comply with the requirement referred to in point 1.2, as regards point (iv) of the complainant's letter of 25 September 2005. This constitutes an instance of maladministration.
1.5 With respect to the part of the complainant's letter of 25 September 2005 referred to above as point (v), the Chairman reiterated, in his letter of 4 October 2005, that the two evaluators had corrected the papers independently and indicated that the papers had been anonymised. In its opinion on the complaint, the Commission elaborated on this matter, by noting the following. The translation tests, which were anonymous and identifiable only by a number, were sent to the relevant Language Department in Luxembourg for correction, and were corrected independently by two translators. On 27 July 2005, the Language Department communicated the test results to the Human Resource Unit (Unit C.01) of DG Translation anonymously. To find out which number corresponded to which candidate, the Unit contacted the field office in the Member State in question, which revealed the names of the candidates. In light of the above, it appears that the Commission addressed adequately the complainant's comments regarding the objectivity of the evaluators. The Ombudsman therefore considers that the Commission adequately addressed this issue.
1.6 With respect to the part of the complainant's letter of 25 September 2005 referred to above as point (vi), the Chairman stated in his letter of 4 October that a further correction outside the Commission services was not foreseen in the context of the their selection procedures. This remark addressed adequately the request made by the complainant for a new correction of his test by a university lecturer with a Ph.D. in the language in question. The Ombudsman therefore considers that the Commission adequately addressed this issue.
1.7 On the basis of the Ombudsman's preliminary assessment of the case his services contacted on 27 February 2007 the complaint by telephone in relation to a possible friendly solution proposal. However, the complainant stated that he would like the Ombudsman to close the case.
1.8 In light of the above, the Ombudsman will make a critical remark below with regard to the instances of maladministration found in point 1.3 and 1.4 of the present decision.
On the basis of his inquiry in this case, the Ombudsman makes the following critical remark:
Principles of good administration, reflected in points 4 and 6 of the Commission's Code of Good Administrative Behaviour(3) require that the Commission, when it receives a complaint similar to the complainant's letter of 25 September 2005, either address adequately the matters raised by the complainant or invoke valid and adequate grounds for not doing so. In the present case, it appears that the Commission has not complied with this requirement, as regards points (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the complainant's letter of 25 September 2005. This constitutes an instance of maladministration.
The Ombudsman thus closes the case.
The President of the Commission will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely,
P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS
(1) In this regard, the Chairman's letter of 10 August 2005 stated the following: "In view of our current recruitment needs for the Field Office, with two posts available, we have decided to invite only the three candidates with the highest notes in the translation test to an interview in Brussels. Unfortunately, you are not among these candidates. Your note on the translation was 10 out of 20. The two markers in the Maltese language department in Luxembourg who revised your test both reached this result, independently. The three best candidates got considerably higher notes, i.e. 17/20, 15/20, and 15/20 respectively."
(2) Annex to Commission Decision of 17 October 2000 amending its Rules of Procedure, OJ 2000 L 267, p. 63.
(3) Ibid.
