Dear Mr. S.,
On 11 August 1999 you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning alleged errors in the assessment of your application which led the Selection Board of Open Competition Council/LA/385 to decide not to allow you to participate in the competition. Furthermore, you allege that the Selection Board's reasoning does not comply with the notice of competition.
On 24 September 1999, I forwarded the complaint to the Secretary General of the Council of the European Union. The Council sent its opinion on 15 November 1999 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 21 February 2000.
I am now writing to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant had applied to Open Competition Council/LA/385 (Finnish language lawyer-linguists) organised by the Council. The complainant's application was excluded from Open Competition Council/LA/385 on the grounds that it failed to meet the condition set out under point III B, b of the notice of competition since the application showed neither a "thorough" knowledge of French nor a "very good" knowledge of English nor did the complainant have sufficient professional experience in which the use of the French language was essential. This assessment was solely based on the supporting documents transmitted by the candidate with his application.
He asked for a review of the Selection Board's decision alleging errors in the handling of his application. The Board replied that after re-assessment he appeared to have a "very good" knowledge of English, but not a "thorough" knowledge of French and maintained its previous decision.
The complainant alleges errors in the assessment of his linguistic skills as well as professional experience on the basis of his application for Open Competition Council/LA/385 and that the Selection Board's reasoning in its letter of refusal was ambiguous and does not comply with the notice of competition.

THE INQUIRY

The Council's opinion
The particular conditions of eligibility for Open Competition Council/LA/385 required « a perfect command of the Finnish language, a thorough knowledge of the French and English language, a very good knowledge of the other of these two languages and an adequate knowledge of one or more other official languages of the EC, i.e. German, Danish, Spanish, Greek, Italian, Dutch and Portuguese ». Furthermore, candidates had to produce appropriate supporting documents to show that these requirements were satisfied.
From the supporting documents submitted by the complainant it emerged that he did not fulfil the requirements. As explained by the Selection Board in its letters dated 22 April and, in more detail, 31 May 1999, the supporting documents submitted by the complainant, while sufficient to show a « very good » knowledge of English, was insufficient to show a thorough knowledge of French, which he had chosen as his first language to be tested in.
In order to demonstrate « thorough » knowledge of either English or French, the Selection Board considered that a candidate for a linguistic post in the General Secretariat of the Council had to show an educational background including at least the long curriculum at secondary school in the relevant language. The complainant, however, has not followed any French studies, not even at secondary school level. The complainant's only connection with the French language was established through his work in a scientific research facility in France between April 1993 and July 1994. It appeared, however, that the French language did not hold a central position in the exercise of this function, as shown, for instance, by the fact that the complainant's publications were made in English. The same applies to the candidate's professional experience at the Translation Centre in Luxembourg. The Selection Board considered, therefore, that the candidate's professional experience was not sufficient to show the required level of expertise in French for the translation of difficult texts from that language into Finnish.
According to the Council, the assessment of the complainant's application was neither ambiguous nor in contradiction with the notice published in the Official Journal.
As a general remark, it was stressed that the Selection Board acts entirely independently. Accordingly, the Secretary General in his capacity as the Appointing Authority, is not in a position to overturn the decisions made by the Selection Board unless there is strong evidence of an illegal decision affecting the legality of the competition as a whole. According to the Council, the criteria applied and the procedures followed in the present case do not show any evidence of this kind.
The complainant's observations
The complainant maintained his complaint. The complainant pointed out that the Council in its opinion has indicated that the applications had to show an educational background including at least the long curriculum at secondary school in French and English. This was not stated in the notice of competition. The Selection Board would have been able to assess the candidates' linguistic skills by organising a language test.

THE DECISION

1 Alleged errors in the assessment of the complainant's application for Open Competition Council/LA/385 and ambiguous reasoning which does not comply with the notice of competition
1.1 The complainant alleges that there have been errors in the assessment of his linguistic skills as well as professional experience on the basis of his application for Open Competition Council/LA/385. Furthermore, he alleges that the Selection Board's reasoning was ambiguous and does not comply with the notice of competition.
1.2 The particular conditions of eligibility for Open Competition Council/LA/385 required « a perfect command of the Finnish language, a thorough knowledge of the French and English language, a very good knowledge of the other of these two languages and an adequate knowledge of one or more other official languages of the EC, i.e. German, Danish, Spanish, Greek, Italian, Dutch and Portuguese ». Furthermore, candidates had to produce appropriate supporting documents to show that these requirements were satisfied.
1.3 In order to demonstrate a « thorough » knowledge of either English or French, the Selection Board considered that a candidate for a linguistic post in the General Secretariat of the Council had to show an educational background including at least the long curriculum at secondary school in the relevant language. The complainant, however, has not followed any French studies, not even at secondary school level. Furthermore, the Selection Board considered that the candidate's professional experience was not sufficient to show the required level of expertise in French.
1.4 According to the case law of the Community Courts, selection boards have wide discretionary powers. In the exercise of these powers selection boards must respect the legal framework for their activities laid down in the notice of competition.
1.5 It is good administrative behaviour to provide the most accurate information possible about the conditions of eligibility for a post. This information should enable the candidate to judge whether he should apply for it, what supporting documents are important for the proceedings, and must therefore be enclosed with the application form. The notice of competition serves the function of properly informing the applicant in that competition of the requirements and conditions to be fulfilled. In the present case, the notice of competition did not explicitly state the requirement of submitting documents certifying "an educational background including at least the long curriculum at secondary school". Under these circumstances the Selection Board failed to provide the complainant with clear and accurate information regarding the fact that knowledge of French or English had to be supported by at least the long curriculum at secondary school. The Selection Board's decision thus left the applicant in doubts whether his linguistic skills and professional experience had been properly assessed in accordance with the criteria laid down by the notice of competition and this constitutes an instance of maladministration.
2 Conclusion
On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, it is necessary to make the following critical remark:

It is good administrative behaviour to provide the most accurate information possible about the conditions of eligibility for a post. This information should enable the candidate to judge whether he should apply for it, what supporting documents are important for the proceedings, and must therefore be enclosed with the application form. The notice of competition serves the function of properly informing the applicant in that competition of the requirements and conditions to be fulfilled. In the present case, the notice of competition did not explicitly state the requirement of submitting documents certifying "an educational background including at least the long curriculum at secondary school". Under these circumstances the Selection Board failed to provide the complainant with clear and accurate information regarding the fact that knowledge of French or English had to be supported by at least the long curriculum at secondary school. The Selection Board's decision thus left the applicant in doubts whether his linguistic skills and professional experience had been properly assessed in accordance with the criteria laid down by the notice of competition and this constitutes an instance of maladministration.

The Secretary General of the Council will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely
Jacob SÖDERMAN