Dear Mr B.,

By letters of 16 January and 5 February 2002, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning open competition COM/A/6/01.

On 18 February 2002, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 8 May 2002 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.

I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman in January and February 2002 against the European Commission. The complainant had participated in the preselection tests of open competition COM/A/6/01 for the recruitment of A7/A6 administrators in the field of external relations and management aid to non-member countries. He passed the preselection tests but was informed by letter of 13 December 2001 that he would not be admitted to the written test as he did not fulfil the criteria of section III.B.3 of the notice, namely the requirement of three years professional experience.

On 10 January 2002, the complainant appealed the Commission's decision. On 29 January 2002, the Commission sent the complainant a letter upholding its original decision that the complainant was not satisfying the criteria of section III.B.3 of the notice concerning professional experience.

The complainant argued that the conditions in section III.B.3 of the notice in open competition COM/A/6/01, discriminate the participants in comparision to participants in other similar competitions at A7/A6 level. Whereas research experience, internship and specialised postgraduate studies are only recognised for a maximum of one year in open competition COM/A/6/01, this experience is recognised without limitation in for example open competitions COM/A/1/01 (administrators in the field of customs) and COM/A/3/01 (administrators in the field of taxation), published in the same year. The two latter were also organised at A7/A6 level and required a minimum of three years professional experienece. As the complainant did not see why research experience and postgraduate studies were less valuable in the field of external relations compared to the policy areas of customs and taxation, he considered this to constitute discrimination and violation of the principle of equal opportunities. For the complainant, this meant that his professional experience would be recognised for more than seven years in open competitions COM/A/1/01 and COM/A/3/01, but for less than three years in open competition COM/A/6/01.

In summary, the complainant alleged discrimination and non-respect of equal opportunities by the Commission in its recruitment policy. The complainant stated that the Commission was not applying the same criteria for open competition COM/A/6/01 as it was for open competitions COM/A/1/01 and COM/A/3/01, all published in 2001, as regards the requirements for professional experience.

The complainant claimed that the Commission revise its decision and admit him to the written test.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion, the Commission referred to the notice of open competition COM/A/6/01, which the complainant had participated in, and to section III.B.3 thereof which stated that duly attested on-the-job specialist training or additional periods of training, study or research, could also be taken into consideration as professional experienec "but may not constitute in total more than one year's experience". The Commission admitted that the other competitions referred to by the complainant did not contain this one-year limitation but refuted that this constituted discrimination or violation of the principle of equal opportunities.

The Commission stated that likewise other Community institutions, it organises its competitions to recruit officials based on the needs of the service. In doing so, the institutions enjoy considerable discretion provided that they observe the general provisions of Articles 5 and 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities. Notices of competitions may thus legitimately differ from one another depending on the profiles of the officials the institution wishes to recruit even when they concern the same career bracket. For example, they may demand certain types of degrees or a particular professional experience. Thus, the nature or length of professional experience may vary, as may the provisions as to whether or not studies, internship etc. are to be recognised as such experience.

The Commission referred to other notices to demonstrate how they might vary. For example, the notices of open competitions EUR/A/166/01 (administrators in the field of audit), COM/A/9/01 and COM/A/10/01 (administrators in the field of economics and statistics or in the field of law) and COM/A/12/01 (administrators in the field of building, logistical and operational management), contain the same one-year limit as regards taking into consideration periods of on-the-job specialist training or other training when calculating the professional experience required.

The Commission concluded that just because certain notices relating to the same career bracket differ, this does not mean that there is discrimination or a violation of the principle of equal opportunities in the recruitment policy.

The complainant's observations

The Commission's opinion was forwarded to the complainant for observations. No such observations were received by the Ombudsman.

THE DECISION

1 Discrimination and violation of the principle of equal opportunities

1.1 The complainant had participated in open competition COM/A/6/01 but was not admitted to the written test as he did not fulfil the criteria of section III.B.3 of the notice, namely the requirement of three years professional experience. The complainant alleged discrimination and non-respect of equal opportunities by the Commission in its recruitment policy. The complainant stated that the Commission was not applying the same criteria for open competition COM/A/6/01 as it was for open competitions COM/A/1/01 and COM/A/3/01, all published in 2001, as regards the requirements for professional experience. The complainant claimed that the Commission revise its decision and admit him to the written test.

1.2 The Commission admitted that notices of open competitions organised for the same career bracket may vary but refuted that this constituted discrimination or violation of the principle of equal opportunities in its recruitment policy. It also referred to its discretion when organising competitions and the fact that competitions are organised to recruit officials based on the needs of the service. Notices may thus legitimately differ from one another depending on the profiles of the officials the Commission wishes to recruit. The Commission also referred to other open competitions, which contained the same one-year limitation as open competition COM/A/6/01.

1.3 The Ombudsman notes that it is for the Commission to decide on the organisation of its competitions for the recruitment of officials, as long as the Commission respects the applicable rules and principles. In doing so, the Commission enjoys a certain margin of discretion. The Ombudsman also recognises that the Commission has to organise its competitions based on the interest and need of the service. In the present case, the Ombudsman does not find that the Commission breached any rule or principle binding upon it when laying down the requirements of the notice of open competition COM/A/6/01. The Ombudsman does therefore not find any maladministration on behalf of the Commission. It follows from this conclusion that the complainant's claim could not be met.

2 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the Commission. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The President of the European Commission will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN