Decision of the European Ombudsman on complaint 1317/98/VK against the European Commission

Dear Mrs S.,
On 8 December 1998, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission concerning the assessment of your written tests in competition EUR/A/123.
On 26 January 1999, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 28 April 1999 and I forwarded the opinion to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. On 18 May and 5 August 1999, you sent copies of your correspondence with the chairman of the selection board to me.
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 took part in Open Competition EUR/A/123 organised by the Commission. The Commission informed her that she had obtained a result of 12.27/20 after oral tests and that the minimum requirement was 13/20. The complainant's name could therefore not be put on the reserve list. The complainant was not satisfied with this decision. She claimed the following:

(1) She had not been given any reasons as regards the result.

(2) The incorrect translation of one of the tests led to incoherent results.

(3) She wished to obtain a copy of her corrected exam paper.

The complainant thereafter lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion
In its opinion, the Commission referred to its letter to the complainant of 27 January 1999 in which the chairperson of the selection board stated the following:
As regards the first allegation, the selection board verified the complainant's results and re-confirmed its previous decision to reject the application as she had not obtained sufficient marks in the different parts of the competition.
In view of the second allegation, the Commission stated that a more general wording was applied for describing the subject matter of the test which was then completed by more specific questions and points. It concerned an extensive test which aimed at verifying the candidates' knowledge in that particular field of the competition. It therefore did not seem possible that the questions raised in this test caused any confusion.
As regards the third allegation, the selection board assessed the test of the candidates in accordance with the notice of competition. The reserve list is not part of information handed out to the general public. It is not common practice to let the candidates consult their exam papers. The statute governing the selection board's work actually stipulates that the latter's work is secret.
The complainant's observations
In her letter of 5 August 1999, the complainant stated that a number of questions had not been addressed by the Commission. She referred to a copy of her letter to the chairman of the selection board in which she maintained her complaint.

THE DECISION

1 Alleged failure to provide reasons
1.1 The complainant alleges that she was not given any reasons for her failure in the written tests.
1.2 The Commission has informed the complainant about the results she obtained. It verified the complainant's results and re-confirmed its previous decision as she had not obtained sufficient marks in the different parts of the competition.
1.3 According to the established case law of the Court of Justice, the communication of the marks obtained in the various tests constitutes an adequate statement of the reasons on which the board's decisions are based(1).
1.4 The Ombudsman finds therefore that the Commission has provided a reason for the complainant's failure in the test.
2 Alleged translation problems
2.1 The complainant put forward that the incorrect translation of one of the tests led to incoherent results and that this could have been the reason why she failed.
2.2 The selection board pointed out that in the paragraph in question, a more general wording was applied for describing the subject matter of the essay paper which was then completed by more specific questions and points. Its aim was to verify the candidates' knowledge in that particular field of the competition. It therefore did not appear possible that the questions raised in this test caused any confusion.
2.3 The explanation given by the Commission appears to be consistent with the notice of Competition. The Ombudsman finds no evidence to support to complainant's claim of maladministration.
3 Refusal to grant access to marked exam papers
3.1 The complainant alleges that she was wrongly denied access to her marked papers in the context of the written tests of competition EUR/A/123.
3.2 The Commission, at the time, took the view that it was not common practice to let candidates consult the papers of their written test.
3.3 On 18 October 1999, the Ombudsman submitted a Special Report(2) to the European Parliament. The Ombudsman recommended that, from July 2000, the Commission should give candidates the possibility to inspect their own examination papers. The Commission accepted this recommendation. It will give candidates access to their own marked examination scripts from 1 July 2000(3). Given that the Commission has agreed to change its position for the future, the Ombudsman does not consider that further inquiries into this issue are justified in the context of the present complaint.
4 Conclusion
On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Commission. The Ombudsman has therefore decided to close the case.
The President of the European Commission will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely
Jacob SÖDERMAN

---

(1) Judgement of 4 July 1996 in Cases C-254/95 P, Parliament v Innamorati, [1996] ECR I-3423, paras 31and 32. Judgment of 17 December 1997 in Case T-217/95, Passera v Commission, [1997] ECR II-1109, paras 32 to 34.

(2) Special Report following the own-initiative inquiry into the secrecy which forms part of the Commission's recruitment procedures.

(3) (cf. Press Release no. 16/99 of the Ombudsman of 15 December 1999).