Strasbourg, 27 June 2005

Dear Mr X,

On 14 July 2004, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the European Parliament's handling of your application for a recruitment procedure for administrators.

On 10 September 2004, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Parliament. Parliament sent its opinion on 2 December 2004. Since Parliament's opinion did not deal with all aspects of your complaint, I sent a request for a clarification to Parliament on 15 December 2004. Parliament sent its reply on 28 January 2005. Parliament's opinion and reply were forwarded to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. No observations appear to have been received from you.

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 are, in summary, the following:

He participated in a recruitment procedure for administrators organised by Parliament, but was informed that he was excluded from participation due to lack of professional experience.

For the post in question, two years' recent professional experience in certain areas was required. The qualifying period in order for the professional experience to be considered recent was December 2000 to December 2003. However, since the complainant had been on parental leave during part of the qualifying period, his experience was not considered recent.

Parliament has declared that it denounces discrimination based on family circumstances. The complainant therefore considers the decision to exclude him from the recruitment procedure to be discriminatory.

The complainant alleges that the European Parliament's decision to exclude him from the recruitment procedure due to lack of recent professional experience is discriminatory.

The complainant claims that:

1. He should be allowed to participate in the recruitment procedure; and
2. His full professional experience should be taken into account in the recruitment procedure.

THE INQUIRY

The European Parliament's opinion

The complainant was excluded from participation in the recruitment procedure in question since he had not supplied supporting documents to prove that he had two years' recent professional experience, as required by point III.B.1.b in the recruitment notice. The complainant was informed about his exclusion by letter of 24 March 2004.

By letter of 10 April 2004, the complainant appealed against the decision to exclude him, arguing that he had ten years' professional experience.

By letter to the complainant of 6 May 2004, the selection committee confirmed its decision to exclude him. The selection committee explained that it had decided to consider as “recent” candidates' professional experience obtained during the period December 2000 to December 2003. The selection committee could not, therefore, take into account professional experience obtained before December 2000, since it was not considered recent in the meaning of the recruitment notice.

Parliament notes that, in his application, the complainant asserted that he had worked for 16 months during the period 1 July 2000 to 21 August 2003. However, the complainant did not provide any documents to prove this experience, which furthermore was less than two years.

According to section III.B.3 in the recruitment notice, candidates were required to enclose with their applications documents to support their two years of recent professional experience. In the absence of such supporting documents, the selection committee could only reject the complainant's application, thereby acting in accordance with the recruitment notice.

As regards the alleged discrimination, Parliament notes that, in his letter of 10 April 2004, the complainant mentioned that he had been on part time parental leave since August 2002. However, since the complainant did not provide any documents to show that he had had limited possibilities to exercise professional activity, the selection committee could not take this fact into account.

If the complainant had clearly explained his family situation and submitted proof of his parental leave to show that he had had limited possibilities to fulfil the required two years' recent professional experience, nothing would have prevented the selection committee from revising the selection criteria. However, since the complainant did not even supply documents to support his asserted 16 months' professional experience, the selection committee finds no reason to review the complainant's application.

However, Parliament would like to inform the Ombudsman that following the present complaint, it has decided that, in future recruitment notices requiring professional experience to be obtained during a specific qualifying period, potential candidates will be clearly informed that periods during which they have been on parental leave will be disregarded, meaning that the qualifying period will be prolonged with as many months as the candidate has been on parental leave.

The Ombudsman invited the complainant to submit observations on Parliament's opinion. No observations appear to have been submitted by the complainant.

THE DECISION

1 Alleged discriminatory exclusion from recruitment procedure

1.1 The complaint concerns the European Parliament's handling of the complainant's application for a recruitment procedure for administrators. For the post in question, two years' recent professional experience were required, the qualifying period being December 2000 to December 2003. The complainant alleges that Parliament's decision to exclude him from the recruitment procedure due to lack of recent professional experience is discriminatory, given that he was on parental leave during part of the qualifying period.

1.2 Parliament argues that in his application, the complainant claimed to have worked for 16 months during the period 1 July 2000 to 21 August 2003. However, the complainant did not provide any documents to prove this experience, which furthermore was less than two years. According to section III.B.3 in the recruitment notice, candidates were required to enclose with their applications documents to support their two years of recent professional experience. In the absence of such supporting documents, the selection committee could only reject the complainant's application, thereby acting in accordance with the recruitment notice.

1.3 Parliament further argues that if the complainant had clearly explained his family situation and submitted proof of his parental leave to show that he had had limited possibilities to fulfil the required two years' recent professional experience, nothing would have prevented the selection committee from revising the selection criteria. However, since the complainant did not even supply documents to support his asserted 16 months' professional experience, the selection committee finds no reason to review the complainant's application.

1.4 However, following the present complaint, Parliament has decided that in future recruitment notices requiring professional experience to be obtained during a specific qualifying period, potential candidates will be clearly informed that periods during which they have been on parental leave will be disregarded, meaning that the qualifying period will be prolonged with as many months as the candidate has been on parental leave.

1.5 The Ombudsman notes that the complainant does not appear to question as such the requirement of two years' recent professional experience or the selection committee's decision that the qualifying period for professional experience to be considered recent should be December 2000 to December 2003. Nor has the complainant contested Parliament's argument that he did not supply any supporting documents to show his asserted professional experience during the qualifying period, or to show that he had been on parental leave during part of that period.

1.6 The Ombudsman notes that, according to section III.B.3 in the recruitment notice, candidates were required to supply supporting documents to prove the professional experience referred to in section III.B.1, i.e. the two years' recent professional experience. The Ombudsman recalls that, according to established case law, the selection committee is bound by the wording of the recruitment notice(1).

1.7 The Ombudsman considers that, being bound by the wording of the recruitment notice, Parliament was obliged to require all candidates to submit supporting documents to prove their professional experience obtained during the qualifying period. The Ombudsman further considers that, by analogy with the wording of the recruitment notice, Parliament was entitled to require candidates to provide supporting documents to prove any limited possibilities to fulfil the required two years' recent professional experience.

1.8 In view of the fact that the complainant did not supply any supporting documents to show his asserted professional experience during the qualifying period, or to show that he had been on parental leave during part of that period, the Ombudsman considers that Parliament was entitled to exclude him from participation in the recruitment procedure. The Ombudsman has found no evidence to suggest that Parliament would have failed to take into account the complainant's period of parental leave if he had provided evidence in that regard. The Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration by Parliament.

1.9 The Ombudsman welcomes Parliament's decision to clarify, in future recruitment notices, how parental leave is taken into account when calculating qualifying periods for professional experience.

2 The complainant's claims

2.1 In his complaint, the complainant claims that he should be allowed to participate in the recruitment procedure and that his full professional experience should be taken into account.

2.2 In view of the Ombudsman's findings in point 1.8 above, the Ombudsman finds no grounds to pursue the complainant's claims.

3 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Parliament. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The President of the European Parliament will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) See e.g. case T-54/91, Nicole Almeida Antunes v. European Parliament [1992] ECR II-1739, paragraph 39.