Strasbourg, 21 September 2005

Dear Mr G.,

On 13 May 2004, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) concerning Open competition EPSO/A/2/03 for assistant administrators (Czech nationals) in the field of "Auditing".

On 7 June 2004, I forwarded the complaint to the Director of EPSO. On 30 August 2004, EPSO sent an opinion in French and on 8 September 2004 a translation of this opinion into English.

On 22 September 2004, I forwarded EPSO's opinion to you with an invitation to make observations. On 18 October 2004, you sent me your observations.

On 18 January 2005, I asked EPSO to provide me with further information. On the same day, I informed you of my request to EPSO. On 14 February 2005, I received your comments concerning, inter alia, that request.

On 8 February 2005, I received EPSO's answer in French and on 21 February 2005, the English translation. I forwarded the translation to you on 3 March 2005, with an invitation to send me your observations. On the same date, I made a second request to EPSO for further information.

On 15 March 2005, you sent me your observations concerning EPSO's answer to my first request for further information.

On 11 April 2005, I received EPSO's answer to my second request for further information, which I sent to you on 24 May 2005. On 31 May 2005, I received your reply. In the meantime, on 26 April 2005, you sent me additional information.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant, who graduated from the University of Economics in Prague in commercial law, has work experience in the field of auditing (in a private company, and as a trainee in the Internal Audit Service of the Commission) and is also a member of the Czech Chamber of Auditors. He participated in Open competition EPSO/A/2/03 for assistant administrators of Czech citizenship in the field of "Auditing".

In December 2003, he took part in the pre-selection and the written tests.

On 12 February 2004, he submitted copies of his documents related to his qualifications.

On 1 April 2004, he received a notice from EPSO that his application had not been accepted on the grounds that the domain in which he obtained his master’s degree (a degree in commercial law from the faculty of international relations) was not considered relevant to the field of auditing, as required by the notice of competition.

On 8 April 2004, he asked EPSO to reconsider its decision.

On 12 May 2004, the complainant received an answer from EPSO upholding its original decision.

On 13 May 2004, the complainant lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman.

He alleged that the notice of competition was too general as regards the qualifications required and their equivalence.

He also alleged that EPSO does not treat Czech candidates equally because, in the Czech Republic, there is no university programme focusing exclusively on auditing as required by the terms of the notice of competition.

Finally, he pointed out that his professional qualifications were rejected after he had taken part in the pre-selection and the written tests and alleged that such a delay exposed him to unnecessary effort and modification of his career plans.

He claimed that EPSO should consider his university degree as equivalent for auditing and admit him to the competition.

In support of his claim, on 26 April 2005, the complainant informed the Ombudsman that the European Commission's Office of Infrastructure in Brussels had invited him for an interview for a position as Assistant to the Internal Auditor.

THE INQUIRY

EPSO's opinion

EPSO's opinion can be summarised as follows.

The complainant participated in Open competition EPSO/A/2/03 to draw up a reserve list of assistant administrators (Czech nationals) in the field of "Auditing".

According to the notice of competition, the candidates had to have obtained a university degree relevant to the field of competition (auditing) or relevant professional qualification of equivalent level. The complainant passed the pre-selection tests and was invited to complete the application form from EPSO's website and send it to EPSO so that the Selection Board could decide on his admission, which the complainant did. On the application form he stated that (1) his master’s degree, which he obtained in 2000, was in commercial law and (2) he had not yet obtained the diploma/certificate from the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (hereinafter: ACCA) where he started further training on 1 August 2000 and passed 11 out of 14 exams. Given that the applicant did not hold a university degree in the field of auditing but in commercial law, the Selection Board deliberated on whether he held a relevant professional qualification of equivalent level at the closing date of the competition (24 June 2003). The Board concluded that the complainant had not completed his training in the ACCA at that date (such accomplishment could be deemed to be a relevant professional qualification of equivalent level). Thus the Board decided that the complainant's application was not admissible.

On 1 April 2004, EPSO informed the complainant of its decision.

On 5 April 2004, the complainant asked EPSO to reconsider that decision and, on 8 April 2004, he sent additional documents.

On 5 May 2004, the Selection Board replied to the complainant and stated that, on the one hand, his master’s degree was not related to the field required in the notice of competition and that, on the other hand, according to the information provided by him on the application form, his professional qualification had not been completed. The Board therefore maintained its initial decision.

EPSO also rejected the complainant's view that, since he joined the Czech Chamber of Auditors on the basis of his master's degree, his qualifications should be admitted for the competition: the Selection Board is only bound by the notice of competition, which does not foresee such a criterion of admissibility.

EPSO also noted that the additional documents submitted by the complainant on 8 April 2004 were not admissible because supporting documents had to be enclosed with the application form (according to point C.3 of the notice of competition) and not later. Nevertheless, these documents did not show that the complainant had completed his training in the ACCA at the closing date for applications although he was authorised to work as an auditor in the Czech Republic.

As regards the complainant's allegation concerning the investment of time and change of career plans in order to participate in the competition, EPSO pointed out that the notice of competition indicates all the successive stages of the competition within a precise timetable and makes clear to candidates that the overall competition will take approximately nine months, depending on the number of candidates registered. In this context, EPSO stressed that the pre-selection tests were held in December 2003 and the complainant was informed of EPSO's decision on 1 April 2004 and that this constitutes a reasonable timescale. EPSO also maintained that submitting an application and taking part in the pre-selection tests is merely the first stage of the competition before the Selection Board examines the applicant's files.

The complainant's observations

The complainant's observations can be summarised as follows:

The complainant stressed that the notice of competition was too general and did not specify clearly what the relevant qualification should be. It only stated that the university degree must be in a field relevant to auditing. In this context, he pointed out that the auditors are required to be familiar with different areas such as finance, accounting, economics, law, statistics, etc. The complainant stated, in this context, that his university curriculum comprised finance, accounting, economics and statistics and that he majored in economics, commercial law and commercial languages. The complainant also argued that he had been applying the skills related to all these areas in his practice as an auditor.

The complainant explained that he had not submitted additional documents concerning his qualification together with his application, because he believed that his university degree, which he had indeed submitted, was relevant to the field of auditing. Finally, the complainant stressed that in the Czech Republic there is no university programme focusing exclusively on auditing. The Czech Chamber of Auditors respects this fact and does not require a university degree in auditing for the admission of its members.

Further inquiries

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

The Ombudsman’s first request for further information

The Ombudsman therefore asked EPSO to respond to the complainant's argument that, since no university education focusing exclusively on auditing exists in the Czech Republic, in order not to discriminate against Czech candidates, his master’s degree in commercial law should have been considered as complying with the requirement of the notice of competition that the candidates must have successfully completed a full course at university degree level in a relevant subject and obtained a degree (or relevant professional qualification of equivalent level).

The Ombudsman also asked EPSO to provide information about whether any Czech candidates have been admitted to the competition on the basis of their university degrees and if so, in which field or fields the degrees had been obtained.

EPSO's reply

In its reply, EPSO made the following comments:

Following the Ombudsman's request, EPSO examined several files of Czech candidates. It found that the Selection Board admitted Czech candidates with a degree in finance, economics and accountancy. According to EPSO, although these degrees do not include an express reference to auditing, they are related to the subjects associated with the field of economics or finance. Furthermore, as regards those candidates who did not have a degree in the above fields, the Board had taken into consideration professional qualifications obtained by them, after they obtained their degrees but before the closing date for applications (24 June 2003), at the ACCA or in the Institute of Internal Auditors in Prague. In contrast to the above candidates, the complainant's degree is particularly concerned with commercial law and he had not obtained the ACCA diploma by the closing date for applications. EPSO took the view, therefore, that the principle of equal treatment had been respected as regards all candidates (including those of Czech citizenship).

Finally, as regards the fact mentioned by the complainant in his observations that he worked as a trainee in the Commission's Internal Audit Service, EPSO pointed out that the requirements to be admitted as a trainee cannot be compared with those for applying for the competition since trainees are not required to have obtained a degree in a specific field of studies.

The complainant's observations

A copy of this reply was forwarded to the complainant. The complainant made, in summary, the following observations:

The Selection Board admitted candidates with a degree in finance, economics and accountancy which are degrees in fields related to auditing and not to "pure auditing". In the complainant's view, however, a degree in law or commercial law is also a degree in a field related to auditing (the complainant quoted the opinion of L. B. Sawyer, author of the book "Internal Audit"). Furthermore, the complainant stated that he had also successfully passed the final exams in economics and the law of securities (related to finance).

According to the complainant, EPSO did not inform him about what the term "relevant subject" mentioned in the notice of competition meant and for that reason he did not send to EPSO the certificate concerning his final exams (a copy of which he attached to his comments to the Ombudsman).

The Ombudsman’s second request for further information

Given that EPSO pointed out in its reply to the Ombudsman's first request for further information that the degree obtained by the complainant "concerns particularly commercial law" while the complainant argued that his degree concerns commercial law and economics, the Ombudsman asked EPSO to inform him whether EPSO contacted the relevant Czech authorities in order to determine the level of the degree obtained by the complainant at the University of Economics in Prague.

EPSO's reply

EPSO stated that, whilst the decision on the level of the degree is indeed within the competence of the Member States (EPSO quoted relevant case law: Case 108/88, Jaenicke Cendoya v Commission, (1988) ECR 2739, paragraphs 49, 550 and 51, and Case T-2/90, Ferreira de Freitas v Commission, (1991) ECR II-103), the decision as to whether the degree was obtained in a relevant subject constitutes the sole responsibility of the Selection Board. EPSO also pointed out that, according to the established case law, the Selection Board enjoys a wide discretion in assessing candidates' qualifications.

EPSO also stated that, again according to the case law, in its task of verifying whether the eligibility criteria set in the notice of competition are met, the Selection Board can only take into consideration the documents and information provided by the candidate with his/her application and is not required to make its own enquiries in order to assess whether a candidate meets such criteria.

Finally, EPSO pointed out that, if the degree held by a candidate may correspond to several academic profiles, the Court of First Instance has ruled that it is for the candidate to provide the Selection Board with all the information needed for the Board to determine whether the degree is relevant for that competition (Case T-332/01 Pujals Gomis v. Commission (2002) ECR II 11555, paragraph 50).

The complainant's observations

The Ombudsman forwarded a copy of EPSO's answer to the complainant. In his reply, the complainant repeated, in summary, his allegations and comments.

THE DECISION

1 Assessment of academic qualifications

1.1 The complaint concerns Open competition EPSO/A/2/03 for assistant administrators of Czech citizenship in the field of "Auditing". The Notice of competition EPSO/A/2/03, published in Official Journal 2003 C 120 A of 22 May 2003, laid down the following conditions for admission to the competition:

Paragraph A (Duties and Eligibility), II. (Eligibility, Profile sought):

"You may apply for this competition if, on the closing date for applications (...) you meet the following requirements.

1. (Certificates and diplomas), Field 4:

"You must have successfully completed a full course at university level in a relevant subject and obtained a degree or relevant professional qualification of equivalent level".

The complainant, who graduated from the University of Economics in Prague in Commercial law, has work experience in the field of auditing and is a member of the Czech Chamber of Auditors. He was excluded from the competition on the grounds that his degree in commercial law did not meet the above-mentioned requirements.

The complainant alleges that the notice of competition was too general as regards the qualifications required and their equivalence.

He also alleges that EPSO does not treat Czech candidates equally because in the Czech Republic there is no university programme focusing exclusively on auditing as required by the terms of the notice of competition.

He claims that EPSO should consider his university degree as equivalent for auditing and admit him to the competition.

In support of his claim, the complainant argues that the European Commission's Office of Infrastructure in Brussels invited him for an interview for a position as Assistant to the Internal Auditor.

1.2 EPSO argues that, according to the established case law, the Selection Board enjoys a wide discretion in assessing the candidates' qualifications. The decision as to whether the degree was obtained in a relevant subject constitutes the sole responsibility of the Board.

EPSO also argues that, again according to the established case law, where the degree held by a candidate may correspond to several academic profiles, it is for the candidate to provide the Board with all the information needed to determine whether the degree is relevant for that competition. The Board is not required to make its own enquiries on this matter.

EPSO also puts forward that Czech candidates were admitted to the competition on the following basis: (1) their degree in finance, economics or accountancy if it had been obtained by the closing date for applications (24 June 2003); and (2) their professional qualification obtained for example in the ACCA or in the Institute of Internal Auditors, if their degree was obtained prior to the closing date for applications and in fields other than finance, economics or accountancy.

The notice of competition

1.3 The Ombudsman has carefully examined the notice of competition and notes that there are two alternative conditions to be admitted to the competition in the field of auditing: (1) the candidates should have successfully completed a full course at university level in a relevant subject and obtained a degree or (2) obtained relevant professional qualification of equivalent level.

1.4 The Ombudsman also notes that, on the pages preceding the notice of competition contained in the Official Journal 2003 C 120 A of 22 May 2003, the requirement that, in order to apply, candidates should have completed the university studies and have a diploma corresponding to the duties to be performed appears in all candidates' languages. In paragraph A of the notice of competition these duties were described in detail.

1.5 Furthermore, the Ombudsman recalls that, according to established case law(1), the appointing authority is bound by the wording of the notice of competition and that “the basic function of a notice of competition is to give those interested the most accurate information possible about the conditions of eligibility for the post, in order to enable them to judge, first, whether they should apply for it”.

1.6 The Ombudsman considers therefore that the notice of competition contained sufficient elements for the candidates to decide whether their qualifications were suitable for the posts they applied for and does not find any instance of maladministration as regards the complainant's allegation that the notice of competition was too general.

1.7 According to the information provided by EPSO, the Selection Board admitted Czech candidates who had obtained a degree in accountancy, finance and economics. From EPSO's explanation, however, the Ombudsman understands that EPSO does not exclude the possibility that a degree in a field other than accountancy, finance and economics could be considered to be relevant to auditing if the candidate and holder of such degree had provided EPSO with the relevant information on his/her university curriculum before the closing date for applications.

1.8 The Ombudsman therefore suggests that, in order to avoid possible misunderstandings and to improve relations with candidates in the future, EPSO could, first, consider indicating in future notices of competitions examples of relevant fields of studies and, secondly, make it clear that candidates whose degree may correspond to several academic profiles should send together with their application form the supporting documents concerning their studies in order to demonstrate that they have been completed in the relevant subject or field. A further remark to this effect will be made below.

The specific situation of Czech candidates

1.9 The Ombudsman notes that, in EPSO's view, the completion of training in such professional bodies as ACCA or the Institute of Internal Auditors in the Czech Republic satisfies the requirement of having obtained a relevant professional qualification of equivalent level to the degree in finance, economics or accountancy.

1.10 The Ombudsman concludes that in the case of Czech candidates who had no diploma in auditing, the Selection Board admitted those of them who had obtained a degree in accountancy, finance and economics or those who completed training in such professional bodies as ACCA or the Institute of Internal Auditors in the Czech Republic.

1.11 The Ombudsman considers therefore that the Selection Board found, according to the notice of competition, an appropriate solution to treat the specific situation of Czech candidates who had not been able to follow up studies in auditing in their country in order to make it possible for them to be admitted to the competition in auditing. The Ombudsman does not find therefore any instance of maladministration as regards the complainant's allegation concerning unequal treatment of Czech candidates.

1.12 As regards the complainant's situation, the Ombudsman understands that, since the complainant appears not to have obtained his professional qualification at the ACCA by the closing date for applications but after that date, the Selection Board assessed his admissibility solely on the basis of his university degree. The Ombudsman also understands that the Board rejected the complainant's application on the grounds that his master’s degree was not in a relevant subject, given that the degree concerned particularly commercial law.

1.13 The Ombudsman recalls, as was also pointed out by EPSO, that according to established case law(2), the appointing authority enjoys a wide discretion in establishing the conditions required for a post and in assessing the candidates' qualifications and thus in judging whether these qualifications are sufficient for admission to the competition.

The Ombudsman also recalls that the Court of First Instance has ruled that the Selection Board, in case of doubt, has no obligation to ask candidates for supplementary information concerning the documents submitted by them(3).

1.14 In the light of the above case law, the Ombudsman considers that it was not unreasonable for the Selection Board to take the view that, on the basis of the information supplied by the complainant with his application, the complainant’s master’s degree was not in a relevant subject. Therefore, the complainant's claim cannot be sustained.

1.15 Moreover, the Ombudsman takes the view that the fact that the complainant was invited for an interview by the Commission within the procedure of a competition for a position as Assistant to the Internal Auditor (the argument raised by the complainant in his letter to the Ombudsman of 26 April 2005) could not be relevant for EPSO’s consideration of the complainant's degree for the purposes of the competition.

2 Alleged delay in deciding about admissibility

2.1 The complainant pointed out that his professional qualifications were rejected after taking part in the pre-selection and the written tests and alleged that such a delay exposed him to unnecessary effort and modification of his career plans.

2.2 EPSO states that the notice of competition indicates all the successive stages of the competition within a precise timetable and makes it clear to candidates that the overall competition will take approximately nine months, depending on the number of candidates registered. In this context, EPSO stressed that the pre-selection tests were held in December 2003 and the complainant was informed of EPSO's decision on 1 April 2004. In EPSO's view, this constitutes a reasonable timescale. EPSO also maintained that submitting an application and taking part in the pre-selection tests is merely the first stage of the competition before the Selection Board examines the applicant's files.

2.3 The Ombudsman notes that, according to the notice of competition(4), the Selection Board may check the candidates' full application in relation to their qualifications (professional and academic) and decide about their admissibility only after they have successfully passed the pre-selection tests.

The complainant took part in the pre-selection tests in December 2003 and was informed of the Selection Board's decision on his admissibility approximately four months later.

2.4 The Ombudsman also stresses that the notice of competition(5) states that the nine-month duration of the competition procedures may change depending on the number of candidates registered. In this context, the Ombudsman notes that, according to EPSO's press-release of 18 May 2004 (published at http://europa.eu/epso/documents/press-release-18-05-04_en.pdf), almost 11,000 candidates from the 10 new member states participated in the pre-selection tests for assistant administrators (competition EPSO/A/1-10/03) in December 2003.

2.5. In these circumstances and in the light of 1.5 above, the Ombudsman does not find any instance of maladministration as regards this aspect of the complaint.

3 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this case, there appears to be no maladministration by EPSO. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The Director of EPSO will be informed of this decision.

FURTHER REMARK

The Ombudsman suggests that, in order to avoid possible misunderstandings and to improve relations with candidates in the future, EPSO could, first, consider indicating in future notices of competitions examples of relevant fields of studies and, secondly, make it clear that candidates whose degree may correspond to several academic profiles, should send jointly with their application form the supporting documents concerning their studies in order to demonstrate that they have been completed in the relevant subject or field.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) See case T-54/91, Antunes v. European Parliament (1992) ECR II-01739, paragraph 39.

(2) See case T-54/91 Antunes v. European Parliament (1992)II-01739, par. 39, and T-249/01 Boixader Rivas v European Parliament (2003) II-00749, paragraph 29.

(3) See case T-145/02, Armin Petrich v. Commission, Judgement of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2004 (not yet reported in the ECR), paragraph 76. The judgement is available in French through the Court’s website http://www.curia.europa.eu.

(4) A.II. Eligibility (Profile sought): "You may apply for this competition if, on the closing date for applications (...), you meet the following requirements: 1. Certificates and diplomas: You will be considered only if your degree is one that gives access to doctoral studiies (...)Field 4: You must have successfully completed a full course at university level in a relevant field and obtained a degree or relevant professional qualification of equivalent level; 2. Professional experience (...); 3. Languages (...); 4. General terms and conditions (see footnote 4)."

(5) Point D. 3 of the notice of competition.