Dear Mr Q.,
On 8 June 1998, you lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman concerning a general competition (EUR/C/110) organised by the European Parliament.
On 27 July 1998, I forwarded the complaint to the President of European Parliament. The European Parliament sent its opinion on 1 October 1998 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished.
On 19 October 1998, you pointed out that the opinion sent by the European Parliament seemed very short suggesting that you probably didn't receive all the documents forwarded by the European Parliament to the European Ombudsman. You informed the Ombudsman that you will comment on the Parliament's opinion, once you have received the full text. On 4 November 1998, I informed you that you had already received the whole document sent by the European Parliament. I have not received any further observations from you.
I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant has participated in a joint competition organised by the European Parliament to recruit French-speaking typists. Since the word-processing software used on the computers during the tests was only available in English, the complainant felt discriminated against and complained to the President of the Selection Board in charge of this competition. According to the complainant, some mechanisms available on the French software were different on the English one. Moreover, he had to use the English helping instructions of the software to get information about the mechanisms of the English software, and suffered of major disadvantages compared to English-speaking competitors. In the complainant's opinion, the conditions in which the test was carried out were in contradiction with Article 6 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community which prohibits discrimination on grounds of nationality.
The President of the Selection board informed the complainant that English wordprocessors are the only ones used within the Community Institutions, and that all the candidates were under the same conditions during the test. As a consequence, there was no reason to envisage the quashing of the competition as requested by the complainant. In an answer to a further request of the complainant, the Head of Unit of the Service for Competitions stated that an advantage for English-speakers in a competition for French-speaking typists is purely theoretical.
The complainant asked the European Ombudsman to investigate the matter, to consider his claim based on article 6 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community, and on the disadvantages he suffered from the use of an English software in comparison to other candidates.

THE INQUIRY

The European Parliament's opinion
The opinion of the European Parliament on the complaint is in summary the following:
The European Parliament has informed the European Ombudsman that the relevant Notice of Competition(1) expressly mentioned that, in view of the computer system used within the European Community Institutions, the software used in the tests would only be available in a single linguistic version. The Parliament stated that all the candidates participated in the tests under the same conditions, that they were given the opportunity to familiarise with the available computers beforehand and to get assistance for questions relating to the main functions of the software.
As regards the disadvantages suffered by the complainant the European Parliament reasserted that an advantage for English-speakers in a competition for French-speaking typists is purely theoretical.
Further, the Parliament stated that its duties require, in particular in the framework of tests relating to technical abilities, that the tools used in competitions are the ones the candidate would actually use in case of a recruitment by an Institution.
The complainant's observations
The European Ombudsman forwarded the Parliament's opinion to the complainant with an invitation to make observations. In his letter of 19 October 1998, the complainant expressed his surprise about the brevity of the Institution's reply but didn't hand in any further observations on the substance.

THE DECISION

1 Discrimination on the basis of nationality
1.1 The complainant, in the framework of a competition for French-speaking typists organised by the European Parliament, felt discriminated against on the ground of nationality, since the software used for a test was only available in English. The European Parliament explained that the Community Institutions only use English software for their daily work, and that it is of its duty to test the candidates' ability to work with it.
1.2 As far as the notion of discrimination on the basis of nationality is concerned, the Ombudsman notes that the present complaint is rather based on Article 5(3) of the Staff Regulations(2) which guarantees identical conditions of recruitment. That requires that identical situations are treated identically and that different situations are not treated identically.
1.3 The fact that the complainant was not offered the possibility to use a software in his mother tongue, with respect to competitions aimed at recruiting English-speaking typists for instance, may appear as discriminatory. However, the European Parliament, in its opinion on the present case as well as in the notice of competition, gave a reasonable justification for it.
1.4 Further, Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities stipulates that "Recruitment shall be directed to securing for the institution the services of officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity(...)". The Ombudsman notes that by using the software the candidates would actually have to use for their work, the European Parliament made sure to employ the best possible means to assess the ability of the potential officials. The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that there is no instance of maladministration as regards this aspect of the case.
2 Disadvantage suffered by the complainant
2.1 The complainant put forward that he was disadvantaged compared to English-speaking competitors. The European Parliament stressed that an advantage for English-speakers in a competition for French-speakers is purely theoretical.
2.2 The Ombudsman notes that knowledge of English was not required by the Notice of Competition. Among the candidates who had never used the English version of the wordprocessor, those who had at least a basic knowledge of English might indeed have been advantaged, unlike what was stated by the European Parliament.
2.3 However, the European Parliament has informed the European Ombudsman, and the complainant did not contradict the Parliament on that point, that the candidates were given the opportunity to get acquainted with the computers available. They were also offered assistance for questions relating to the main functions of the software. The European Parliament has apparently taken appropriate steps to limit the drawbacks of the use of an English software. As regards this aspect of the case, on the basis of the information collected by the European Ombudsman and forwarded by the complainant, no instance of maladministration has been found.
3 Conclusion
On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Parliament. The Ombudsman has therefore decided to close the case.

FURTHER REMARKS

The Ombudsman would find it appropriate, unless it jeopardises the actual purpose of the test, that the Notice of Competition specifies which exact linguistic version of a software is made available to the candidates during a test.
The President of the European Parliament will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely
Jacob SÖDERMAN

---

(1) OJ 1996 C 284 A.

(2) Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities: Article 5, paragraph 3.