Decision of the European Ombudsman on complaint 133/99/VK against the European Parliament

Dear Mr K.,
On 1 February 1999 you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Parliament concerning your exclusion from the written tests in competition EUR/A/127.
On 9 March 1999, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Parliament. The Parliament sent its opinion on 29 June 1999 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. No observations appear to have been received.
I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant applied for competition EUR/A/127 of the European Parliament for civil servants of grade A7 and A6 in the field of Information Technology and Telecommunications. He was then informed by the chairman of the selection board that his application was rejected because he had failed to produce sufficient documents to prove his professional experience of at least 3 years in at least two of the required areas including at least two years' proven experience in the field of information technology, as stated under Title IV 3 of the notice of competition.
The complainant contested this decision by letter of 12 October 1998. As he had not heard from the Parliament by the end of that year, he sent a reminder letter to the Parliament on 1 January 1999. The Parliament responded by letter of 26 January 1999. In this letter, the Parliament stated that the complainant could not be admitted to the competition as he did not hold the required degree in information technology as foreseen under Title III.B.2.1. of the notice of competition, but a degree as Ingénieur Commercial.
The complainant replied by stating that this was incorrect as he holds a degree as Ingénieur Civil with a specialisation in information technology.
On the basis of the above, the complainant alleges that his application was not handled correctly for the following reasons:
(1) The Parliament failed to provide clear and correct reasoning because a) it provided two different reasons for the rejection of the complainant's application and b) that neither one of them was correct.
(2) It took the Parliament over 3 months to reply to his letter in which he contested the Parliament's decision.

THE INQUIRY

The European Parliament's opinion
In its opinion, the Parliament made the following comments with regard to the aspects of the complaint:
As regards the first claim, Parliament acknowledged that it had sent two letters to the complainant, on 12 October 1998 and 26 January 1999. The second letter confirmed its previous decision not to admit the complainant to the competition. By mistake, the second letter reasoned that the complainant could not be admitted because he did not hold the required degree in information technology as foreseen under Title III.B.2.1. of the notice of competition, but a degree as Ingénieur Commercial. Due to the fact that there was another candidate with the same family name, a confusion had arisen. When replying to the complainant's request for explanation the Parliament accidentally mistook the complainant for the other candidate whose application was in fact rejected for the above mentioned reason, i.e. the failure to hold the degree in information technology. The Parliament expressed its regret about this confusion and the trouble that it had created for the complainant.
The Parliament acknowledged that the second reason given was incorrect. It affirmed the reason given in its first letter. Thus, it stated that the complainant's application was rejected because he had failed to produce sufficient documents to prove his professional experience of at least 3 years in at least two of the required areas including at least two years' proven experience in the field of information technology, as stated under Title IV 3 of the notice of competition. The selection board has re-examined the complainant's application and confirmed its previous decision.
In view of the second claim, the Parliament stated that the delay in responding to the complainant's requests had to be seen in the light of the work carried out by the selection board. In the end of the year period, priority was given to the onerous task of translating, verifying and reproducing the texts of these tests in the eleven official languages.
Therefore, the letters confirming the non-admission could only be sent out immediately prior to the written tests, on 26 January 2000. The Parliament promised to do its utmost to ensure that letters of this nature are in the future sent out as soon as possible after the decision of the selection board.
The complainant's observations
The complainant has not made any observations on the matter.

THE DECISION

1 Failure to provide clear and correct reasoning
1.1 The complainant alleges that he had been given two different reasons for the rejection of his application and that neither of the two reasons was correct.
1.2 The first reason given by the Parliament was the failure to produce sufficient documents to prove the complainant's professional experience of at least 3 years in at least two of the required areas including at least two years' proven experience in the field of information technology, as stated under Title IV 3 of the notice of competition.
1.3 In its comments, the Parliament confirmed its first reasoning. It stated that the selection board re-examined the complainant's application and confirmed its previous decision.
1.4 Title IV 3 of the notice of competition stipulates that the selection board will base its decision exclusively on the information given on the application form and on the supporting documents supplied.
1.5 The Parliament stated that the complainant has not provided sufficient documents to prove his professional experience of at least 3 years in at least two of the required areas. The complainant has not provided the Ombudsman with any documents to this effect either.
1.6 On the basis of the above, it appears that the selection board has acted in accordance with the notice of competition when rejecting the complainant's application. There appears to have been no maladministration on the part of the Parliament as regards the first claim.
1.7 The second reason provided by the Parliament was that the complainant could not be admitted to the competition as he did not hold the required degree in information technology as foreseen under Title III.B.2.1. of the notice of competition, but a degree as Ingénieur Commercial.
1.8 In its comments, the Parliament explained that there was another candidate with the same family name to whom this reason for rejection applied and that it had confused the two names when replying to the complainant's request for explanation. The Parliament expressed its regrets for the confusion created by its error.
2 Late response
2.1 The complainant claims that there has been undue delay in the handling of his request for a review.
2.2 In its opinion the European Parliament stated that the selection board examined a number of requests to re-consider applications to the competition in question, including the complainant's letter. In case of the complainant, the selection board decided to maintain its initial decision. According to the Parliament, in the end of the year period priority was given to the onerous task of translating, verifying and reproducing the texts of these tests in the eleven official languages. As a consequence, the letters confirming the non-admission could only be sent out immediately prior to the written tests, on 26 January 1999.
2.3 The Parliament promised to do its utmost to ensure that in the future letters of this nature are sent out as soon as possible after the relevant decision of the selection board.
2.4 The Ombudsman observes that according to Point V of the Notice of Competition the selection board will review an application and inform the applicant of its decision as soon as possible. Principles of good administrative behaviour require that the Parliament's services ensure that a decision on a request for a review is taken within a reasonable time limit, without delay. The Ombudsman notes that there was a delay of over three months before the Parliament sent a decision to the complainant's request for a review. Therefore, the fact that the Parliament did not inform the complainant about the decision within a reasonable time limit constituted an instance of maladministration.
3 Conclusion
On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, it is necessary to make the following critical remark:

The Ombudsman observes that according to Point V of the Notice of Competition the selection board will review an application and inform the applicant of its decision as soon as possible. Principles of good administrative behaviour require that the Parliament's services ensure that a decision on a request for a review is taken within a reasonable time limit, without delay. The Ombudsman notes that there was a delay of over three months before the Parliament sent a decision to the complainant's request for a review. Therefore, the fact that the Parliament did not inform the complainant about the decision within a reasonable time limit constituted an instance of maladministration.

The President of the European Parliament will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely,
Jacob SÖDERMAN