Dear Mrs M.,
On 28 April 1998, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the refusal of the Service of Competitions and Selection Procedures (DG V) of the European Parliament to provide you with the analytical overview of the marks you obtained in the oral examination of competition EUR/LA/102 for translators.
On 4 September 1998, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Parliament. The Parliament sent its opinion on 19 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:
The complainant participated in competition EUR/LA/102 (Greek language translators) organised by the European Parliament. After having successfully passed the written tests, she participated in February 1998 in the oral examination, but failed and got no information about the mark that she had obtained. The complainant wrote to the Head of the Service of Competitions and Selection Procedures (DG V) asking for an analytical overview of the marks she had obtained from each member of the Selection Board, because she considered that one of them had been negative, aggressive and unfair to her during the oral examination. However, her request was refused by the Head of the Service, who replied on 24 March 1998 that the oral examination had been the same for all candidates, all of whom had been treated equally. The complainant thus lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman about the refusal of the Competitions Service of the European Parliament to provide her with the analytical overview of the marks she obtained.

THE INQUIRY

The Parliament's opinion
In its opinion, the Parliament expressed its regrets for the fact that due to an oversight, the complainant's marks in the oral examination were not communicated to her. However, the Parliament gave this information in its observations and indicated that her marks on the oral test were 19.27/40 (minimum pass mark 20/40). As for the communication of the analytical overview of the marks of each member of the Selection Board, the Parliament confirmed the negative decision of the Competitions Service. It stated that, according to the case law of the Court of Justice, it is not permitted to divulge information regarding the Selection Board's assessment of the tests of individual candidates, such information being treated as confidential.
The Parliament also stated that, in this kind of open competition, candidates are in competition with each other, the standard being set by the best performances. Out of the 18 candidates invited to the oral tests, 12 figured on the reserve list (in conformity with the notice of competition). Therefore, given that the marks obtained by the complainant in the written tests were relatively low, relative success in the oral test would by no means have placed her on the reserve list. The Parliament also gave the detailed marks obtained by the complainant on the written examination (11/20, 22.75/40 and 20.5/40 respectively on the pre-selection test and the two translation tests).
The complainant's observations
The complainant in her observations maintained her complaint and repeated that the real reason why she wanted a detailed list of the marks obtained from each member of the Selection Board was to compare the marks she obtained from the member of the Selection Board who had been unfair to her with the other marks, in order to see if there had been a considerable gap between them.
The complainant added that she could perfectly understand that there were other candidates with marks higher than her. However, this would not have deprived her of the right to figure on the reserve list if she had obtained the minimum mark of 20/40 in the oral test. According to the complainant, the notice of competition specified a reserve list of 18 successful candidates, whereas only 12 were in fact put on the list. Therefore, if the complainant had obtained at least 20/40, (which she thinks the said member of the Selection Board deprived her of), she would have been entitled to one of the 6 remaining posts.

THE DECISION

1 The alleged failure of the Selection Board to provide the complainant with an analytical overview of the marks obtained on the oral test
1.1 The complainant alleged that the Competitions Service of the Parliament failed to provide her with an overview of the marks obtained on the oral test from each member of the Selection Board. The Parliament stated that, according to the case- law of the Court of Justice, the works of Selection Boards and the assessment of the tests of individual candidates are treated as confidential and covered by secrecy.
1.2 The Ombudsman first notes that the failure to provide the complainant with the final mark obtained on the oral exam was due to an oversight for which the Parliament expressed its regrets to the complainant. In its observations, the Parliament finally communicated to the complainant the exact mark obtained (19.27/40) and thus settled this part of the complaint. Therefore no further remark by the Ombudsman appears to be necessary on this aspect of the case.
1.3 As regards the overview of the marks obtained from each Member of the Selection Board, the Ombudsman notes that, in the present state of Community law, there is no legal basis for considering that the Parliament is under an obligation to disclose detailed information on the marks that each member of the Selection Board gave to a candidate. Therefore, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Parliament in this case.
2 Conclusion
On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Parliament. 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