Dear Mr K.,

On 31 January 2002, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the Court of Auditors concerning Open Competition CC/A/3/01.

On 27 February 2002, I forwarded your complaint to the President of the Court of Auditors. The Court of Auditors sent its opinion on 31 May 2002, and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 15 June 2002. Your observations were forwarded to the Court of Auditors with a request to submit further information. On 30 October 2002, the Court of Auditors replied to the request for further information. Its reply was forwarded to you with an invitation to make observations by 31 December 2002 if you so wished. No observations 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 is a Commission official, who participated in Open Competition CC/A/3/01 organised by the Court of Auditors. According to the complainant, the relevant facts are as follows:

On 10 December 2001, the Selection Board of the competition informed the complainant that his application could not be considered as he had not included in his application a certificate proving that he is an official of the European Communities. The complainant had forwarded this document to the Selection Board in his original application.

On 17 December 2001, the complaint sent a letter requesting for a review of his candidature. On 17 January 2002, the Chairman of the Selection Board replied in Swedish confirming the previous decision to exclude the complainant from the Open Competition. All correspondence had been in Finnish until that date. This time the Selection Board gave as a reason that the complainant had not forwarded a certificate of equivalence of his diploma obtained in the United States.

The complainant alleges that the Chairman of the Selection Board has made a mistake in the review of his application because the Notice of Competition does not require a certificate of equivalence.

Furthermore, the complainant alleges that due to negligence and misinterpretation he has lost a possibility to participate in a competition that is important for his career.

The complainant claims that his application should be reviewed and that he should be given a possibility either to participate in Open Competition CC/A/3/01 or in separately organised tests.

THE INQUIRY

The Court of Auditors' opinion

In its opinion, the Court of Auditors made, in summary, the following points:

In the first letter of the Selection Board, dated 10 December 2001, the reason for the refusal to participate in Open Competition CC/A/3/01 was wrongly given as the fact that the complainant had not indicated in his application a certificate proving that he was an official of the European Communities. This was due to a factual error that occurred when ticking the list of reasons of refusal. The Chairman of the Selection Board has apologised both for this error and for sending the letter in Swedish to the address in Sweden that the complainant had given to the Selection Board.

By a letter of 17 January 2002 the Selection Board informed the complainant of the reason for the refusal, namely the fact that the complainant had not attached proof of equivalence of his university diploma, obtained in the United States, to his application.

The Court of Auditors considers that the Notice of Competition does require the candidate to attach proof of equivalence of the university diploma. The Notice is clear in this regard:

- Point III: "The competition is open to the candidates who, on the closing date for the submission of applications, satisfy the following requirements."

- Point III.B.2: "Only university-level diplomas giving access to doctorate studies will be considered. It is up to the candidates to check, where necessary, the level of their diplomas with the competent national authorities."

- Point X.2: "The application form accompanying this notice of competition must be duly completed and signed by the candidate. Photocopies of documents showing that the candidates satisfy the special and specific conditions for admission to the competition must be attached so that the Selection Board can check that they correspond to the information provided on the application forms."

Because, the complainant's file does not contain any documents verifying the level of his university diploma the Selection Board correctly refused to allow his participation in the competition.

The complainant's observations

In his observations, the complainant made, in summary, the following points:

According to the last sentence of the Notice of Competition it is up to the candidates to check, where necessary, the level of their diplomas with the competent national authorities. The Court of Auditors' opinion does not clarify how the complainant should have realised that a certificate of equivalence was needed in his case.

The complainant knows of persons who acquired their degrees abroad, who did not enclose certificates of equivalence with their applications and who were nevertheless admitted to participate in Open Competition CC/A/3/01.

Further inquiries

After careful consideration of the Court of Auditors' opinion and the complainant's observations, it appeared that further inquiries were necessary.

The Ombudsman sent the complainant's observations to the Court of Auditors, together with a request for further information as to whether any candidates who acquired their degrees outside the EU and who did not submit a proof of equivalence with their application were nonetheless admitted to participate in Open Competition CC/A/3/01. F urthermore, if the answer was positive, the Court was requested also to address the question of whether the exclusion of the complainant was in accordance with the principle of equal treatment of candidates in a competition.

The Court of Auditors' complementary opinion

In reply, the Court of Auditors stated that it had no knowledge of any candidates who acquired their degrees outside the European Union and who were admitted to participate in Open Competition CC/A/3/01 without submitting proof of equivalence with their application.

No observations were received from the complainant on the Court's reply.

THE DECISION

1 The requirement of proof of equivalence

1.1 According to the complainant, he was excluded from Open Competition CC/A/3/01 organised by the Court of Auditors because he had not forwarded a certificate of equivalence of his diploma obtained in the United States. The complainant alleges that the Chairman of the Selection Board made a mistake in the review of his application because the Notice of Competition does not require a certificate of equivalence. Furthermore, the complainant alleges that due to negligence and misinterpretation he has lost a possibility to participate in a competition that is important for his career. The complainant claims that his application should be reviewed and that he should be given a possibility either to participate in Open Competition CC/A/3/01, or in separately organised tests.

1.2 The Court of Auditors argues that the Notice of Competition requires the candidate to attach proof of equivalence of his university diploma. Since the complainant did not do so, the Selection Board correctly refused to allow him to participate in the competition.

1.3 The Ombudsman notes that the Notice of Competition states that: only university-level diplomas giving access to doctorate studies will be considered; that it is up to the candidates to check, where necessary, the level of their diplomas with the competent national authorities; and that photocopies of documents showing that the candidates satisfy the special and specific conditions for admission to the competition must be attached to applications. In these circumstances the Ombudsman does not consider that it has been demonstrated that the Selection Board failed to abide by the Notice of Competition in deciding to exclude the complainant because he had not supplied proof of equivalence of his diploma.

1.4 In his observations, the complainant stated that he knows of persons who acquired their degrees abroad, who did not enclose certificates of equivalence with their applications and who were nevertheless admitted to participate in Open Competition CC/A/3/01. In reply, the Court of Auditors stated that it had no knowledge of any candidates who acquired their degrees outside the European Union and who were admitted to participate in Open Competition CC/A/3/01 without submitting proof of equivalence with their application. The complainant has made no observations on this point.

1.5 In the light of the above, the Ombudsman considers that his inquiry has revealed no maladministration by the Court of Auditors.

2 Conclusion

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

The President of the Court of Auditors will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN