Dear Mr B.,
On 16 March 1999, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Parliament concerning your exclusion from the written tests in competition PE/86/A.
On 7 May 1999, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Parliament. The Parliament sent its opinion on 3 August 1999 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. No observations appear to have been received.
I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant applied for competition PE/86/A of the European Parliament for English-language Assistant Administrators of grade A8. He was then informed by the chairman of the selection board that his application was rejected because the marks he obtained in his degree were not at least equivalent to Second Class Honours, Division One (a "2.1") in Ireland and the United Kingdom as stated in Title III.B.2(a) of the notice of competition(1).
The complainant contested this decision by letter of 13 October 1998. The Parliament responded by letter of 23 December 1998. In this letter, the Parliament repeated its earlier reasoning. It further stated that as concerns the degrees obtained in other countries, the selection board had to take into account the different education systems. In doing so, the selection board came to the conclusion that the marks obtained in the complainant's degree could not be considered as "at least equivalent" to the level requested for degrees in Ireland or the United Kingdom.
On the basis of the above, the complainant states that he objects to the Parliament's decision for the following reasons:
(1) The complainant puts forward that a "2.1" UK or Irish university degree is a degree valued between 60 to 70%. His degree was "6.37/10 = 64%, and thus clearly a "2.1" degree. He considers it is discriminatory to rule that a 64% degree from a Greek University is not equivalent to a 64% degree from a UK or Irish university degree.
(2) The Parliament failed to provide clear information prior to the competition concerning the possible equivalence of degrees from other countries.

THE INQUIRY

The European Parliament's opinion
In its opinion, the Parliament made the following comments with regard to the aspects of the complaint:
The Parliament stated that over 36% of the applicants to this competition were non-British or non-Irish, and had received degrees from other educational systems. The selection board strictly applied the rule stated in the footnote of Title III.B.2 (a) of the notice of competition specifying the requirement of a "2.1" degree.
Pursuant to the terms of the notice of competition, the selection board took into account the different educational systems. It considered the criteria of equivalence based on objective elements contained in the applications submitted.
As regards Greek degrees, which are issued with the classification "excellent", "very good" or "good", the selection board decided that the equivalent of a "2.1" degree is at least a "very good". The complainant's degree was classified as "good". It therefore did not fulfil this criterion.
Taking into account the range of educational qualifications presented by the candidates, and the growing number of persons applying for competitions, the linguistic conditions of which do not correspond to their mother-tongue, the European Parliament's Competition Service is prepared to give consideration to the possibility of annexing to future notices of competition an indicative table of comparable qualifications in the different Member States.
The complainant's observations
The complainant has not made any observations on the matter.

THE DECISION

1 Alleged discriminatory decision of the selection board not to accept complainant's Greek degree as equivalent
1.1 The complainant alleges that his degree is equal to a UK or Irish degree and that it is discriminatory to rule that 6.37/10 from a Greek University is not equivalent to 64% from a UK or Irish university.
1.2 The Parliament replied that the selection board did take into account the different education systems and that it had decided that the equivalent of a "2.1" degree is at least a "very good" in a Greek degree. The complainant's degree was only classified as "good". It therefore did not fulfil this criterion. The complainant did not contest this analysis.
1.3 According to the established case law of the Community Courts, decisions of selection boards in such cases can be reviewed on grounds of manifest error, misuse of power, or manifest violation of the limits of its discretion. No evidence has been brought forward by the complainant in the course of this inquiry which could question the judgements made by the selection board. The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that the selection board acted within the limits of its legal authority. There appears, therefore, to be no instance of maladministration as regards this aspect of the case.
2 Failure to provide clear information on the criteria prior to the test
2.1 The complainant stated that there was no information on the evaluation of non-Irish and non-British degrees provided prior to the test.
2.2 The Parliament stated that taking into account the range of educational qualifications presented by the candidates, and the growing number of persons applying for competitions, the linguistic conditions of which do not correspond to their mother-tongue, its Competition Service was prepared to give consideration to the possibility of annexing to future notices of competition an indicative table of comparable qualifications in the different Member States.
2.3 It is good administrative behaviour to provide the most accurate information possible about the conditions of eligibility for a post to enable the applicant, to judge whether he should apply for it.
2.4 The Ombudsman welcomes the Parliament's proposal to consider annexing additional information on the evaluation of degrees from other countries, which could enhance the transparency of the procedure and enable applicants to judge whether to apply for a particular competition.
3 Conclusion
On the basis of the Ombudsman 's inquiries into this case, there appears to have been no maladministration by the Parliament. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.
The President of the European Parliament will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely
Jacob SÖDERMAN

---

(1) OJ 1998 C 77 A/11