Strasbourg, 27 November 2007

Dear Ms D.,

On 2 June 2006, you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Personnel Selection Office ("EPSO") concerning the Selection Board's decision to cancel seven questions in the pre-selection tests in Open Competition EPSO/AD/25/05.

Given that your allegations and claims were similar to those submitted by the complainants in cases 1583/2006/BU, 1686/2006/BU and 2175/2006/BU, I decided to conduct an inquiry into your complaint and those three cases jointly(1).

On 29 August 2006, I forwarded the complaints to the Director of EPSO and asked EPSO to submit an opinion. On 22 November 2006, EPSO sent a French-language version of its opinion, and, on 27 November 2006, provided a version with the other complainants' names deleted. On 1 December 2006, EPSO sent an English translation of the opinion. I forwarded the opinion to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 31 January 2007.

By letter of 22 June 2007, I addressed further inquiries to EPSO concerning your complaint, and informed you accordingly. EPSO sent a French-language reply to the further inquiries on 5 July 2007, and provided an English translation thereof on 10 July 2007. I forwarded both language versions to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 18 July 2007.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The complainants sat pre-selection tests (a), (b) and (c) and written test (d) in Open Competition EPSO/AD/25/05, which aimed at recruiting administrators in the field of European public administration/Human resources(2).

By letters of 22 May 2006, EPSO informed the complainants that, although their marks in the tests were equal to or above the pass-mark, their scores were not amongst the highest 630 scores. Point B.1 of the Notice of Competition stipulated that only those candidates with the highest 630 marks in the pre-selection tests would be asked to submit a full application with a view to their potential admission to the competition. The complainants were also informed that:

"As a result of inaccuracies identified after the pre-selection tests were taken, the Selection Board has decided to delete the following multiple choice questions:

• Test a): questions 17, 20, 22 et 34
• Test b): questions 69 and 74
• Test c): question 21

In order to ensure equality of treatment for all candidates, the decision to delete these questions has been applied to the test in all languages. The total score given in the Notice of Competition remains unchanged. The value of each remaining question has been calculated by dividing the total score by the number of remaining questions."

All of the complainants wrote to EPSO and asked for reconsideration of the above decision. They stated, in substance, that the cancellation of such a high number of questions seriously affected the results of the candidates who had answered those questions correctly. The complainants(3) also emphasised that EPSO should have prepared the pre-selection tests properly. They further asked for a detailed explanation of the reasons why each of the questions was cancelled. Finally, the complainants requested that EPSO take corrective measures in order to eliminate the negative consequences that the cancellation has had for them(4).

In its replies to the complainants, EPSO stated that the possibility of finding more than one correct answer, as well as the impossibility of finding a correct answer, could have led the Selection Board to the decision to cancel a question. EPSO added that, even though an error may have occurred only in one language version of the tests, it was necessary to cancel the questions concerned in all language versions, in order to be able to assess the candidates on the basis of the same questions. EPSO also reiterated that the pass-mark for each test had been determined in the Notice of Competition, that the total score given therein remained unchanged and that the value of each remaining question was calculated by dividing the total score in each test by the number of remaining questions. EPSO did not provide a more detailed explanation to any of the complainants, and did not take any of the corrective measures which they had requested.

In their complaints to the European Ombudsman, the complainants alleged, in substance, that EPSO:

(1) failed properly to prepare the competition; and

(2) failed to provide them with a detailed explanation of the reasons for which it decided to cancel the questions concerned.

The complainants claimed that EPSO should:

(1) take corrective measures(5) in order to eliminate the negative consequences that the above decision has had for some candidates; and

(2) provide, for each of the questions concerned, a detailed explanation of the reasons for which it decided to cancel it.

THE INQUIRY

EPSO's opinion
Background

EPSO first provided a summary of the facts corresponding to those described in the section "The complaint" above.

EPSO stated that, a fter the four candidates contacted it and asked for additional explanations relating to their marks and to the Selection Board's decision to cancel certain questions, it sent each candidate a list of their answers together with the table of correct answers. Further, EPSO stated that it provided the complainants with the following information on the reasons why the Board decided to cancel seven questions in the pre-selection tests: the B oard decided to cancel four questions in test (a), two questions in test (b) and one question in test (c) after detecting that there was either more than one potential answer or no correct answer at all. An error in one of the language versions led to the removal of the question concerned from all language versions.

EPSO also explained that the Selection B oard's decision to cancel questions was applied to all candidates in order to comply with the principle of equal treatment, and added that this could not be guaranteed if the candidates were not assessed on the basis of strictly identical criteria. According to EPSO, the candidates were also informed of the procedure for awarding points: the value of each remaining question was calculated by dividing the score indicated in the Notice of Competition - which remained unchanged - by the number of remaining questions.

EPSO's position on the complainants' allegations and claims

EPSO explained that it provides the Selection Board with administrative, logistical and IT support for the organisation of the tests of the competition. Once the Board has set the tests, it is EPSO's responsibility to have them translated and reproduced. It also co-ordinates the revision of the texts translated by DGT(6). However, despite the numerous verifications and checks carried out before the competition is actually held, in some cases, unfortunately, some errors go undetected, in the wording of the questions, in the proposed answers, or in the translations.

EPSO went on to say that, after the tests of this competition had been held, the Selection Board received a number of comments from candidates asking it to check the accuracy of certain answers or querying the wording of particular questions. The Board examined all the reasons and explanations provided by the candidates and came to the conclusion that certain questions were indeed problematic. Given that all candidates must be assessed in the same way according to the same parameters, the Board decided to cancel the contentious questions for all candidates, irrespective of the language chosen to sit the test.

According to EPSO, the effect of cancelling certain questions was that it became necessary to redistribute, for each test, the total number of points among the remaining questions. The value of each remaining question had been calculated by dividing the maximum score indicated in the Notice of Competition by the number of remaining questions. By increasing the value of each correct answer in this way, the Selection Board did not deduct any points from any candidates. EPSO emphasised that the Board is bound by the text of the Notice of Competition and is not authorised to change the scores set for the tests.

EPSO pointed to the purpose of the decision to cancel the questions, which was to enable the individual capabilities of the candidates to be evaluated objectively and in compliance with the principle of equal treatment, and to avoid assessing them on the basis of non-identical criteria. The legality of such a decision is confirmed by the case-law of the Community Courts, in particular in Case C-263/01 P Giulietti v Commission(7) and Case T-189/99 Gerochristos v Commission(8), according to which

"candidates are expected to answer all the questions and not just certain questions to be chosen as they see fit. The number and content of the questions for which an answer is needed are therefore the same for all candidates. Retroactively cancelling a question for all candidates, thus reducing the number of questions that had to be answered on the day of the tests, means that the candidates' chances of success against each other are unchanged."

Therefore, "[t]he argument that cancelling certain questions is a violation of the principle of equal treatment since the time spent on the removed questions is different for each candidate is based on a misconception of this principle. This argument does not relate to an irregularity of the competition conditions imposed on the candidates, or to an unequal assessment of the candidates on the part of the selection board, but to the individual behaviour of the candidates themselves. Far from providing that there has been any discrimination, the argument only underlines the existence of differences between candidates sitting competitions."

EPSO added that, as it was acting within its margin of discretion, the Selection Board did not in any way violate the principle of equal treatment by deciding to cancel questions and by dividing the total score indicated in the Notice of Competition among the remaining questions. Cancelling questions does not change the provisions of the Notice of Competition, since the maximum score and the pass-mark remain unchanged. On the other hand, the Notice of Competition did not stipulate a specific number of questions for each of the tests. Such a determination is the sole prerogative of the Board, which has a considerable margin of discretion in deciding both the number of questions and the detailed content of the tests, while not losing sight of the primary aim of open competitions, which is to recruit officials of the highest calibre.

EPSO also pointed out that, when an error is detected, during or after the tests, it is dealt with in an appropriate manner with due regard for the principles of equal treatment of candidates and proportionality. According to EPSO, cancelling a question is a proportionate response to an error which does not, in any way, constitute an irregularity in the handling of the operation as a whole. Therefore, the Selection Board acted within its margin of discretion and did not err in law.

As regards the impact of the cancellation, EPSO stated that, if one were to assume that the seven cancelled questions could have been answered correctly, that would have produced a different threshold figure for the 630th best score and would have brought the results of all the candidates into question. It cannot therefore be inferred automatically that the complainants would have been among the 630 candidates with the best results had the questions not been cancelled.

With respect to the negative consequences, mentioned by the complainants, of the cancellation of certain questions, EPSO stated that (i) the cancellation can have positive and well as negative effects on candidates, depending on the number of correct or incorrect answers given for the remaining questions; and (ii) the case-law in this field shows that these are one of the consequences of the nature of the competitions and of the behaviour of candidates but that this does not in any way constitute unequal treatment.

Further, EPSO provided the following explanations for the reasons for which the Selection Board decided to cancel the questions concerned:

As regards test (a), the Selection Board decided to cancel (i) question 17 because there was more than one potential answer; (ii) question 20 because there was no correct answer; (iii) question 22 because a typographical error had occurred in the alphabetical reference for the correct answer in the Spanish version; and (iv) question 34 due to a mistranslation (in English) of one of the answers.

As regards test (b), questions 69 and 74 were cancelled because none of the suggested answers was correct.

Finally, as regards test (c), question 21 was not translated correctly into German.

The complainants' observations

The complainants in cases 1686/2006 BU and 2175/2006/BU did not submit any observations.

The complainant in case 1583/2006/BU made, in substance, the following observations:

He maintained the position that the number of questions cancelled was very high, and stated that EPSO was invoking the case-law in order to obscure the fact that it was entirely responsible for the cancellation of the questions. The complainant also took the view that it was not enough to keep the score unchanged, and added that EPSO should also have preserved the 'format' of the competition, that is, the number of questions. He also wondered, as regards the number of questions cancelled, what the threshold was which would render the competition invalid. The complainant further pointed out that the Ombudsman's intervention was necessary in order to obtain from EPSO the detailed explanations for the reasons for the cancellation of the questions. He added that EPSO must still make serious efforts with respect to transparency, and wondered why the specific reasons for cancellation of each of the questions could not have been published on EPSO's website immediately after the notification of the results to the candidates.

The complainant in case 1659/2006/(GK)BU made, in substance, the following observations:

First, she contested the statement in EPSO's opinion according to which "EPSO sent each candidate a list of their answers together with the table of correct answers", stating that she received no detailed communication from EPSO. The complainant also took the view that the information that EPSO provided to her concerning the reasons why the Selection Board decided to cancel the seven questions was not specific enough. In this regard, the complainant explained that EPSO merely repeated what was already stated in its letter of 22 May 2006 informing the candidates of the results of the pre-selection tests. Much as with the complainant in case 1583/2006/BU, the complainant in the present case pointed out that the first time she received any detailed explanation of the reasons for the cancellation was when she was provided with information by EPSO in reply to the Ombudsman's request for an opinion.

The complainant went on to explain that she did not object to the principle of cancellation, and stated that a human error leading to cancellation of a question or two could be acceptable. However, she pointed out that the extent of the cancellations in the present case was unacceptable, and also expressed the view that a line must be drawn at some point as regards the number of questions that may be cancelled.

As regards the impact of the cancellation, the complainant reiterated her views concerning the negative consequences that the cancellation of questions has had for some candidates. She also repeated her claim that candidates who, had the seven questions not been cancelled, were within reach of the pass-mark if they had answered those questions correctly, should be admitted to the next stage of the competition.

Finally, the complainant expressed the view that EPSO did not act fairly and transparently in the present case, and that the Ombudsman should, at the very least, recommend to EPSO that it communicate with candidates in a manner that is commensurate with their hard work and dedication in preparing to sit the competition.

Further inquiries in case 1659/2006/(GK)BU
The Ombudsman's letter of 22 June 2007 to EPSO

The Ombudsman asked EPSO to provide copies of both the correspondence and the relevant annexes by means of which it sent to the complainant a list of her answers together with the table of correct answers.

EPSO's reply of 5 July 2007

EPSO acknowledged that, unfortunately, the relevant part of its opinion was incomplete and the sentence should have read "EPSO sent to each of those candidates who have submitted a request the list of their answers as well as the grid of correct answers" (emphasis in original). EPSO most sincerely apologised for this regrettable omission.

EPSO also stated that this complainant did not request a copy of her answers and the list of correct answers. In spite of that, EPSO attached copies of those documents to its reply.

The complainant's further observations of 18 July 2007

The complainant stated that, although she did not explicitly ask for a copy of the questions or the list of correct answers, this does not mean that she did not request information from EPSO at all. In this regard, she pointed to her letter of 30 May 2006 to EPSO in which she, among other things, urged the Selection Board to publish, fully and transparently, the basis on which the judgement that there were inaccuracies in the questions had been made. The complainant also pointed to her letter of 12 June 2006 to EPSO, in which she reproached EPSO for failing to give any satisfactory or transparent explanation of the decision to cancel the questions, and stated that such an explanation should be given for each cancelled question.

The complainant emphasised that EPSO's answers to her above letters were inadequate, and reiterated that EPSO provided a detailed explanation of the reasons for the cancellation of the questions only after the Ombudsman had requested an opinion.

Finally, the complainant again reiterated her views on the impact of the cancellation and restated her claim concerning the corrective measures that EPSO should take.

THE DECISION

1 Cancellation of the questions of the Open Competition

1.1 The complainants participated in the pre-selection tests for Open Competition EPSO/AD/25/05. Subsequently, on 22 May 2006, the European Personnel Selection Office ("EPSO") informed them that (i) as a result of inaccuracies identified after the tests had taken place, the Selection Board decided to cancel seven questions of the pre-selection tests; and (ii) the marks obtained by the complainants were insufficient for them to be asked to submit a full application.

The complainants alleged that EPSO failed properly to prepare the competition. They claimed that EPSO should take corrective measures(9) in order to eliminate the negative consequences that the above decision has had for some candidates.

1.2 In its opinion, EPSO stated, in summary, the following:

(i) Despite the numerous verifications and checks, unfortunately some errors went undetected.

(ii) After receiving a number of comments from candidates, the Selection Board decided to cancel seven questions for all the candidates, in strict respect of the principles of legality, equal treatment and proportionality.

(iii) The legality of such a decision is confirmed by the case-law of the Community Courts(10), according to which the potential negative effects of the cancellation of the questions are one of the consequences of the nature of the competitions and the behaviour of the candidates, and do not constitute unequal treatment.

(iv) The maximum score and the pass-mark of the Notice of Competition remained unchanged.

(v) The total number of points was redistributed among the remaining questions and the value of each remaining question was calculated by dividing the score indicated in the Notice of Competition by the number of remaining questions.

(vi) If one were to assume that the seven cancelled questions could have been answered correctly, such an eventuality would have produced a different threshold figure for the 630th best score and would have brought the results of all the candidates into question. For these reasons, it cannot therefore be inferred automatically that, had the questions not been cancelled, the complainants would have been among the 630 candidates with the best results.

1.3 Those of the complainants who submitted observations emphasised that the extent of cancellations in the present case was unacceptable, and expressed the view that there must be a threshold as regards the number of questions that may be cancelled.

1.4 At the outset, the European Ombudsman recalls that, under the principles of sound administration and equal treatment, the Community institutions have a duty to all candidates in a competition to ensure that the tests are conducted as smoothly and properly as possible. As the Community Courts have held, the administration is obliged to ensure that the competition is properly organised and, in particular, that the material distributed to candidates is carefully prepared(11).

1.5 Moreover, the Selection Board is responsible for the drafting of tests(12), and EPSO is, in turn, responsible for the proper organisation of the competitions, including the translation of the questions and proper printing of the examination material.

1.6 In the present case, however, a considerable and unusually high number of errors occurred in the organisation of the competition, namely, in the preparation of the texts of the pre-selection tests. These errors would suggest a lack of due care and attention and could have raised doubts, in the minds of candidates, concerning the accuracy of the selection procedure. Although the Ombudsman notes that, according to the relevant Notice of Competition, the preparation of the pre-selection tests on specific subjects of this competition involved 11 official languages of the EU(13), the Ombudsman takes the view that the occurrence of such a high number of errors in the present competition amounts to maladministration.

1.7 The Ombudsman points out that he already made a critical remark concerning the same subject matter in his decision on complaint 2479/2006/JF(14). In that case, EPSO has taken the same position as in the cases inquired into in the present joint inquiry. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers that no further inquiries are justified as regards the present complaint, but will close the case by referring to his critical remark in the above-mentioned case 2479/2006/JF.

1.8 With respect to the potential negative effects of the cancellation and the complainants' claims in this regard, the Ombudsman points out that his previous decisions concerning this subject-matter(15) accept the principle that a question in a competition may be cancelled.

1.9 Further, according to the case-law of the Community Courts, the candidates are supposed to answer all questions and not only those questions which they choose. The number and the content of the questions for which an answer is necessary are therefore identical for all candidates and the chances of the candidates would remain unchanged if, at a later stage, a certain number of questions were to be cancelled(16). In addition, the Ombudsman points out that, in the specific case involving a decision to cancel certain questions of a competition retroactively, the Court of First Instance has held explicitly that such a measure does not constitute a breach of the principle of equal treatment(17).

1.10 Finally in this respect, the Ombudsman notes EPSO's statement that, after the cancellation of questions, the maximum score and the pass-mark of the Notice of Competition remained nonetheless unchanged. It appears therefore that this cancellation was carried out in such a way as to ensure that the interests of candidates were not negatively affected.

1.11 In light of the arguments in points 1.8 to 1.10 above, the Ombudsman considers that EPSO's position that the Selection Board acted within its margin of discretion, did not err in law and did not violate the principles of equal treatment and proportionality appears to be reasonable. Therefore, the Ombudsman takes the view that the complainants' claims that EPSO should take corrective measures in order to eliminate potential negative consequences, for some candidates, arising from the cancellation of the questions, cannot be sustained.

2 Failure to provide a detailed explanation of the reasons for the cancellation

2.1 By letter of 22 May 2006, EPSO informed the complainants, among other things, that, as a result of inaccuracies identified after the tests had taken place, the Selection Board decided to cancel seven questions in the pre-selection tests.

The complainants wrote to EPSO and requested a detailed explanation as to why each of the questions was cancelled. EPSO answered that the possibility of finding more than one correct answer, as well as the impossibility of finding a correct answer, could have led the Selection Board to the decision to cancel a question. EPSO also stated that, even though an error may have occurred only in one language version of the tests, it was necessary to cancel the questions concerned in all language versions, in order to assess the candidates on the basis of the same questions.

The complainants found the above explanations insufficient. Therefore, they alleged that EPSO failed to provide them with a detailed explanation of the reasons for which it decided to cancel the questions concerned. They claimed that, for each of the questions concerned, EPSO should provide a detailed explanation of the reasons for which it decided to cancel it.

2.2 In its opinion to the Ombudsman, EPSO stated, in summary, that as regards test (a), (i) question 17 was cancelled because more than one potential answer existed; (ii) question 20 was cancelled because there was no correct answer; (iii) question 22 was cancelled because a typographical error occurred in the alphabetical reference for the correct answer in the Spanish version; and (iv) question 34 was cancelled due to a mistranslation (in English) of one of the answers. As regards test (b), questions 69 and 74 were cancelled because none of the suggested answers was correct. Finally, question 21 of test (c) was not translated correctly into German.

2.3 Those of the complainants who submitted observations pointed out that EPSO provided detailed explanations for the reasons for cancellation only after the Ombudsman had requested an opinion.

2.4 The Ombudsman takes note of EPSO's explanations summarised in point 2.2 above. However, the Ombudsman also recalls that principles of good administration provide that officials shall endeavour to be as helpful as possible and reply as completely and accurately as possible to questions that are put to them(18). In this context, the Ombudsman fails to see why EPSO was not able to offer the above explanations to the complainants earlier, in the course of its correspondence with them.

2.5 The Ombudsman finds it particularly regrettable that, in its reply of 14 June 2006 to the e-mail of 12 June 2006 sent by the complainant in case 1659/2006/(GK)BU, EPSO stated that "[u]nfortunately, we cannot but confirm the information given to you in our email of 9 June 2006."(19)

The Ombudsman also finds it particularly regrettable that, in its reply of 1 June 2006 to the e-mail of the same day sent by the complainant in case 1686/2006/BU, which asked: "Is it thus not possible to know what were the errors that were made?"(20), EPSO answered: "Unfortunately, we cannot give you more details about the cancellation of the questions."(21)

2.6 However, the Ombudsman notes that, in its opinion on the complaints, EPSO did provide a detailed explanation concerning the reasons for cancelling the questions, in knowledge of the fact that the opinion would be forwarded to the complainants as part of the Ombudsman’s normal inquiry procedure.

2.7 In view of the above, as well as the further remarks which he made concerning this subject-matter in his decision on complaint 2479/2006/JF, the Ombudsman considers that no further inquiries are justified as regards this aspect of the present complaint either. However, the Ombudsman will close the case by referring to his further remarks in the above-mentioned case 2479/2006/JF.

3 Conclusion

For the reasons explained in points 1.7 and 2.7 above, the Ombudsman considers that no further inquiries are justified into the present complaint. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

However, the Ombudsman refers to his critical remark in case 2479/2006/JF according to which EPSO's failure to avoid an unusually high number of errors in the organisation of Open Competition EPSO/AD/25/05 suggested a lack of due care and attention, raised doubts in candidates' minds about the accuracy of the selection procedure, and constituted an instance of maladministration.

The Ombudsman also refers to his further remarks in the same case, according to which (i) considering the importance of open competitions for candidates and EU institutions and bodies, it is imperative that, when preparing the materials of the said competitions, EPSO act as diligently and carefully as possible; and (ii) when answering correspondence, telephone calls and e-mails, EPSO's officials must, in accordance with Article 12 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, be as helpful as possible and reply as completely and accurately as possible to questions which are put to them.

The Director of EPSO will be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) The Ombudsman also received complaints 1646/2006/IP and 1850/2006/IP as well as complaint 2479/2006/JF concerning the same competition, which were dealt with separately from the present joint inquiry.

(2) OJ 2005 C 178 A.

(3) Except the complainant in case 1686/2006/BU.

(4) The main measures requested were: (i) admitting to the next stages of the competition the candidates who could potentially have been among the best 630 candidates had the questions not been cancelled; or (ii) annulment and repetition of the pre-selection tests.

(5) See note 4 above.

(6) The Ombudsman understands "DGT" to refer to the Commission's Directorate-General for Translation.

(7) Case C-263/01 P Giulietti v Commission, order of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2001, unreported, paragraphs 35 and 36. Translation provided by EPSO.

(8) Case T-189/99 Gerochristos v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-11 and II-53.

(9) See note 4 above.

(10) Case T-189/99 Gerochristos v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-11 and II-53; and Case C-263/01 Giulietti v Commission, order of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2001, unreported, paragraphs 35 and 36.

(11) See, for example, Case T-159/98 Torre and Others v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-83 and II-395.

(12) Case T-189/99 Gerochristos v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-11 and II-53, paragraph 25 which provides that "[t]he selection board in a competition has a wide discretion with regard to the detailed procedures for and content of the tests to be held in connection with the competition."

(13) According to Section B, point 1 of the Notice of Competition, candidates were invited to "sit tests (a), (b), and (c) in [their] second language (see Section A, point II.2) (…)". Section A, point II.2 provides that candidates must have "(a) a thorough knowledge of one of the following official languages of the European Union (main language): Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish or Swedish [and] (b) a satisfactory knowledge of a second of these languages."

(14) The decision is available on the Ombudsman's website (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu).

(15) See decisions on complaints 761/99/BB, 904/99/GG, 729/2000/OV and 31/2001/IP, which are available on the Ombudsman's website (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu).

(16) Case C-263/01 P Giulietti v Commission, order of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2001, unreported. Paragraph 35 provides, in the original French, that: "(...) les candidats étaient censés répondre à toutes les questions et non seulement à certaines d'entre elles qu'ils auraient pu choisir selon leur gré. Le nombre et le contenu des questions pour lesquelles une réponse était nécessaire étaient donc identiques pour l'ensemble des candidats. Ainsi, le fait d'éliminer ultérieurement, pour l'ensemble de ceux-ci, un nombre inferieur de questions, a laisse inchangé les chances que chacun des candidats avais par rapport à ses concurrents."

(17) Case T-189/99 Gerochristos v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-11 and II-53, paragraphs 25 and 26.

(18) Article 12 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.

(19) By e-mail of 9 June 2006, EPSO provided the complainant with the explanation summarised in the second paragraph of point 2.1 above. By e-mail of 12 June 2006, the complainant insisted that that answer was completely unsatisfactory.

(20) Translation from French by the Ombudsman's services.

(21) Translation from French by the Ombudsman's services.