Dear Mr N.,
On 23 March 1998 you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the refusal of the Selection Board of open competition EUR/LA/101 (Greek language translators) to provide you with information about the evaluation criteria of the test and to send you a copy of your corrected test.
On 4 September 1998, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Parliament. The Parliament sent its opinion on 25 November 1998 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. On 31 December 1998, I received your observations on the Parliament's opinion.
I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the relevant facts were as follows:
In November 1997 the complainant participated in the written tests of open competition EUR/LA/101. However, by letter dated 19 January 1998, the Chairman of the Selection Board informed him that he could not take part in the following stage of the competition, given that he only obtained 18 marks on test y) (translation from English into Greek) and that the requested minimum was 20/40 marks.
Surprised by this result, the complainant wrote on 28 January 1998 to the Selection Board in order to obtain more information on the evaluation criteria and the mistakes which his written test contained. In its answer dated 18 February 1998, the Selection Board stated that the evaluation of the test had been done strictly anonymously by four members of the Board. The Selection Board also observed that, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, it could not furnish more detailed information on the evaluation criteria, because this information is covered by the obligation of secrecy which surrounds the works of Selection Boards. It particularly pointed out that the case-law prohibits Selection Boards from providing the candidates with their corrected tests and with the individual comments of the individual members of the Board. Finally, given that no error had occurred in the determination of the marks of the complainant, the Selection Board confirmed its decision to exclude him from the oral examinations.
Not satisfied with the reply of the Selection Board, the complainant wrote to the Ombudsman in order to contest the decision of the Board by which he was refused 1) information on the evaluation criteria and 2) a copy of his corrected test. The complainant stated that he should be able to know which mistakes he made in his examination. Therefore he did not understand why it was impossible to send him a copy of the corrected version of his written papers. If that was not possible, the Selection Board could at least give general guidelines about marking procedures.

THE INQUIRY

The European Parliament's opinion
In its comments, the Parliament stated that according to the case-law of the Court of Justice (Innamorati/Parliament case C-245/95 P)(1) it is not permitted to divulge information regarding the Selection Board's assessment of the test of individual candidates, because this information is treated as confidential. According to this case-law, communication to those concerned of the marks obtained in the tests constitutes sufficient motivation of the decisions taken. The Parliament finally considered that the same case-law, taking into account the secrecy of the work of selection boards, prohibits communication to the candidates of the correction of their written tests or of the criteria on which these corrections were based.
The complainant's observations
The complainant maintained his complaint. He stated that he just wanted to know the way and the criteria according to which his paper had been evaluated. The complainant further considered that, contrary to the Innamorati case where the plaintiff has asked for the annulment of the competition, he only wanted to exercise his right as a European citizen to be informed about a competition in which he has taken part. He finally addressed the "veil of secrecy" and untransparency which covers every single step of this kind of competition and selection procedure. He observed that disclosing information to the citizens about the evaluation criteria could be of help for future candidates.

THE DECISION

1 The alleged refusal of the Selection Board to provide information on the evaluation criteria
1.1 The main allegation of the complainant concerns the fact that the Selection Board refused in its letter of 18 February 1998 to provide the complainant with information on the selection criteria. As regards this allegation, the Parliament stated that according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, the proceedings of Selection Boards are covered by the statutory obligation of secrecy which forbids communication to candidates of the criteria on which the corrections of the written tests were based.
1.2 Selection Boards, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice and the principles of good administrative behaviour, should provide applicants with the reasons necessary for understanding the decisions they take. Therefore the Ombudsman considered it insufficient that, despite the complainant's request, the Parliament did not provide more detailed information on the criteria of evaluation used by the Selection Board.
1.3 The Ombudsman draws the Parliament's attention to the fact that, by communicating more detailed information on the criteria of evaluation to the candidates, the Parliament would considerably increase the transparency in the recruitment and could also alleviate the work of Selection Boards in dealing with requests and complaints from applicants.
2 The alleged refusal of the Selection Board to provide the complainant with a copy of his examination paper
The second allegation of the complainant concerns the fact that the Selection Board refused to give him a copy of his corrected test. In the present state of Community law there is no legal basis for considering that the Parliament is under an obligation to disclose a copy of corrected examination papers to the candidates. In this regard, the Ombudsman refers however to his own initiative inquiry concerning more transparency in the recruitment procedures followed by the Commission (ref. 1004/97/PD). This inquiry concerns, amongst other things, the refusal of Selection Boards to provide candidates with a copy of the corrected test.
3 Conclusion
On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, it appears necessary to make the following critical remark :

Selection Boards, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice and the principles of good administrative behaviour, should provide applicants with the reasons for the decisions they take. Therefore the Ombudsman considered it insufficient that, despite the complainant's request, the Parliament did not provide more detailed information on the criteria of evaluation used by the Selection Board.

Given that this aspect of the case concerns procedures relating to specific events in the past, it is not appropriate to pursue a friendly settlement of the matter. The Ombudsman has therefore decided to close the case.
The President of the European Parliament will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely,
Jacob SÖDERMAN

---

(1) Case C-254/95 P, Innamorati v. Parliament, [1996] ECR I-3423.