The background to the complaint

1. The certification procedure allows officials, who are members of the assistants' function group (AST) grade 5 and upwards, to be appointed administrators (AD), and become members of the AD function group. To do so, they have to be selected for a compulsory training programme, which they must successfully complete. Selection is made on the basis of their periodical reports, referred to in Article 43, their level of education and training, and by taking account of the needs of the services. The candidates who successfully complete the training programme are then qualified to apply for vacant AD posts corresponding to their grade. The certification procedure is based on Article 45a of the Staff Regulations[1].

2. The criteria for ranking the candidates selected for the above training programme are defined in Article 5 of the Commission’s General Implementing Provisions ('GIPs') adopted in 2007. The candidates receive points, which are awarded as follows:

"(ii) Points according to the highest level of education obtained by the candidate: (from 0 to 10 points)

The candidates will be awarded points according to their level of education – as demonstrated by qualifications/diplomas officially recognised by the Member State or the third country in which they were issued – as follows: …

f) University level of a legal duration of studies of at least 4 years: 8 points

g) University level third stage "(troisième cycle"): 10 points

A candidate shall be granted the points corresponding to the highest education level he/she reached.

(iii) Points according to the recent professional experience acquired in the institutions in priority fields: Points will be awarded to officials who have acquired professional experience within the institutions over the last 10 years in at least 2 of a listed priority fields (the detailed list is available in the 2007 GIPs)."

3. The complainant is an AST 6 official of the European Commission, working for the Directorate-General for Informatics. In 2007, he applied to take part in the certification procedure to obtain a post in function group AD. With his application, he enclosed a copy of his Engineering Diploma in Information and Communication Technologies ('Engineering Diploma') awarded by Lille University of Science and Technology, France, on 21 June 1994.

4. The complainant was not selected to take part in the training programme. His name did not, therefore, appear on the list drawn up by the Appointing Authority.

5. On 7 January 2008, the complainant lodged an appeal with the Joint Committee[2] concerning the absence of his name from the relevant list.

6. On 1 February 2008, the Joint Committee rejected the complainant’s appeal. The Appointing Authority subsequently maintained its decision not to include the complainant's name on the list of candidates for the certification procedure in 2007. The grounds given were that he failed to attain the number of threshold points required for admission to the training programme.

7. On 26 February 2008, the complainant lodged an Article 90(2) complaint with the Appointing Authority concerning the number of points he had been awarded regarding both his professional experience and his level of education. The complainant pointed out that (i) he had acquired professional experience in several of the listed priority fields, namely, "Information technologies", "Budget, Finances and Contracts" and "Interinstitutional relations", and (ii) his Engineering Diploma was a third-stage university level education diploma "equivalent to a Master". He stated that he should have been awarded 10 points instead of eight for his level of studies.

8. In its reply, the Appointing Authority rejected the complaint. It referred to the number of points awarded to the complainant regarding his professional experience. His main professional experience had been acquired in the field of "Information technologies", for which points had been awarded. It stated that the experience gained in the other two fields, namely, in the "Budget, Finances and Contracts" and "Interinstitutional relations" was not relevant.

9. As regards the number of points awarded to the complainant for his level of education, the Appointing Authority stated that, according to the chart established by EPSO concerning the equivalence of the different diplomas acquired within the EU Member States, his Engineering Diploma could not be considered as a "troisième cycle". The Appointing Authority therefore considered that the complainant had been correctly awarded eight points in respect of his level of education.

10. The complainant accepted the Appointing Authority’s explanation regarding the number of points awarded for his professional experience.

11. He challenged, however, its decision on the number of points awarded for his level of education. On 18 August 2008, he lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman.

The subject matter of the inquiry

12. In his complaint, the complainant alleged that the Commission wrongly considered that his Engineering Diploma, awarded by a French university, was not equivalent to a Master's Degree. As a result, the Commission failed to award him 10 points for his level of education for the purposes of the certification procedure. He argued that some of his colleagues, who had also graduated from French universities, had been awarded 10 points for their respective Master's Degrees, after lodging an Article 90(2) complaint.

13. The complainant claimed that the Commission should (i) award him 10 points for his Engineering Diploma and (ii), as a matter of principle, carry out a more equitable recognition of diplomas obtained in Member States.

14. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the above allegation and claims.

15. The Ombudsman further asked the Commission (i) to explain why it considered that a chart established by EPSO provided more reliable information about the level of certain studies than certificates provided by National Ministries of Education (such a certificate was issued for the complainant); and (ii) specifically to comment on the complainant's argument that some of his colleagues, who had obtained the same type of diploma as his, were given 10 points in the selection procedure, after lodging an Article 90(2) complaint.

The inquiry

16. On 16 September 2008, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry regarding the complainant’s allegation and the above claims.

17. On 25 November 2008, the Commission sent its opinion. The Ombudsman forwarded it to the complainant with an invitation to make observations, which he submitted on 3 December 2008.

18. After consideration of the Commission's opinion and the complainant's observations, the Ombudsman, on 26 October 2009, made a provisional finding of maladministration and, in accordance with Article 3(5) of his Statute, proposed a friendly solution to the Commission.

19. On 15 March 2010, the Commission sent its reply. In its letter, it explained that it did not accept the proposal for a friendly solution. The Ombudsman forwarded the reply to the complainant, with an invitation to submit observations. The complainant sent his observations on 24 March 2010.

20. On 19 January 2011, in accordance with Article 3(6) of his Statute, the Ombudsman made a draft recommendation to the Commission.

21. By letter dated 21 March 2011, the Commission replied to the Ombudsman's draft recommendation. A copy of that letter was forwarded to the complainant. By e-mail of 4 April 2011, the complainant sent his observations.

The Ombudsman's analysis and conclusions

A. The Commission’s alleged failure to consider the complainant’s Engineering Diploma as equivalent to a Master's Degree

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

(i) The alleged unfair decision to award eight points to the complainant for his Engineering Diploma

22. The complainant argued that the decision of the Appointing Authority to award him only eight points for his Engineering Diploma was unfair. Pursuant to French Decree 99-747 of 30 August 1999, he considered it to be equivalent to a Master's degree.

23. The complainant enclosed a certificate from the University of Lille, dated 11 July 2008, which specifically referred to the complainant's Engineering Diploma, stating: "[P]ursuant to the French Decree 99-747 of 30 August 1999 as amended concerning the grade of Master, the award of this diploma automatically gives the grade of Master". The complainant also enclosed documentation from the French Ministry of Education, according to which an Engineering Diploma has a credit-rating of 300 points[3], the same rating given to DEA and DESS Diplomas before 1999 or, by current standards, a Master level 2 degree.

24. The Commission stated that it did not wish to challenge the validity of the certificate issued by the French university dated 11 July 2008, which stated that the complainant's Engineering Diploma was equivalent to a Master's degree.

25. However, in order to select candidates entitled to attend training for the certification procedure in 2007, and to ensure their equal treatment, the Commission had to (i) compare the level of studies of all the candidates from all Member States and (ii) not only compare the length of the studies necessary to obtain a diploma, but, in addition, to take into consideration the fact that the diplomas may have been obtained before 1999, that is, the date when the Bologna process[4] was launched, when national education structures within the EU were not homogeneous.

26. For the above reason, EPSO drafted a chart, which was annexed to the application form for the 2007 certification procedure. As regards French diplomas, EPSO added a supplementary level of education to the second stage of university studies. It called this new level "the third university stage" ("troisième cycle") and indicated that it takes four years to complete.

27. In the present case, the only diploma submitted by the complainant was an Engineering Diploma in "Information and Communication Technology", awarded by Lille University of Science and Technology, France, on 21 June 1994, following five years of study. However, there was "no indication anywhere" that this diploma corresponded to the third university stage ("troisième cycle"). More specifically, there was nothing to indicate that the complainant obtained another diploma in addition to the aforementioned diploma, which was awarded after the completion of the second cycle of university education.

28. No such indication was given in the French university certificate submitted by the complainant. The certificate merely stated that: "[P]ursuant to the French Decree 99-747 of 30 August 1999, as amended, concerning the grade of Master, the award of this Diploma automatically gives the holder the grade of Master". It did not make clear which level of Master degree was concerned (level 1 or 2).

29. The Commission further explained that, in France, Master's Degrees are divided into two levels: Master level 1 (which corresponds to the former French "Maîtrise"), and Master level 2 (which corresponds to the former DEA/DESS). Only the Master level 2 was considered to be "troisième cycle". In order to get a Master level 2, a Master level 1 must first be obtained, or a diploma from a "Grande Ecole". Moreover, the admission to Master level 2 was not automatic, but subject to selection.

(ii) As regards the alleged difference of treatment between the complainant and his colleagues

30. The Commission stated that two of the officials who lodged an Article 90(2) complaint against the decision to exclude them from the list of officials allowed to attend the training had received a positive reply.

31. As regards the first official allowed to attend the training programme, his diploma, entitled "Post graduate diploma in archival studies" was considered to be a "troisième cycle" diploma because it was preceded by a degree, a "BA Honours in Modern Languages and Literature".

32. As regards the second official, his diploma, awarded in 2007, was entitled "Master 2 Science and Technology".

33. In his observations, the complainant reiterated that his Engineering Diploma was equivalent to a Master level 2 because, in accordance with the documentation from the French Ministry of Education, it had a credit-rating of 300 points, the same rating, that is, as DEA and DESS Diplomas.

The Ombudsman's preliminary assessment leading to a friendly solution proposal

34. In the present case, the Commission stated that the decision challenged by the complainant was taken on the basis of the chart drawn up by EPSO. The Commission stated that this chart did not provide any details on specific diplomas, such as the one obtained by the complainant.

35. In its opinion, the Commission explained in detail the current system regarding the award of French diplomas, and admitted that DEA and DESS diplomas appeared to be the equivalent of a Master level 2. However, it failed to take a stance on the complainant's claim that his Engineering Diploma, awarded in 1994, had a credit-rating of 300 points, the same as DEA and DESS Diplomas awarded before 1999. The complainant submitted this argument in his complaint to the Ombudsman, referring to relevant documentation from the French Ministry of Education[5]. The Ombudsman regretted the Commission's failure to address this issue.

36. The Ombudsman agreed that the Appointing Authority exercises a wide discretion when assessing candidates' qualifications and determining whether their academic qualifications are sufficient for them to be admitted to the relevant certification procedure. However, he took the view that decisions regarding the level of diplomas primarily lie within the competence of the Member States[6].

37. It thus appeared reasonable that the Commission should avoid making generalisations about the level of diplomas obtained before the Bologna process if EPSO's chart did not indicate any equivalence in terms of the post Bologna system for a particular diploma. Each diploma should, instead, be assessed individually by the relevant national authorities.

38. The complainant argued that, for the Commission to be considered as having acted diligently[7], it should have contacted the French authorities in order to clarify the level of his diploma. It was not evident from the Commission's opinion, however, that any such contact was made. This could have been an instance of maladministration.

39. In light of the above, the Ombudsman made the following proposal for a friendly solution, in accordance with Article 3(5) of his Statute:

"The Commission could refer to the French authorities, such as the "Commission nationale de la Certification professionnelle", in order to determine the level of the complainant's diploma, obtained before the launch of the Bologna process, when compared to diplomas obtained after that process.

If the complainant's argument that his Engineering Diploma is equivalent to the "troisième cycle" is proved to be true, the Ombudsman considers that it would be appropriate for the Commission to envisage adopting measures designed to bring about a fair outcome to settle the complainant's claims."

The arguments presented to the Ombudsman after his friendly solution proposal

The Commission's reply

40. The Commission referred to the indisputable fact that EU institutions enjoy a wide margin of discretion when comparing the respective value of diplomas obtained in the various Member States, for the purposes of applying its recruitment policy, and that this margin of discretion cannot be challenged by harmonisation at European level, EU directives, or the Bologna process.

41. The Commission stated that the aim of the Bologna Process was to establish a common framework for European diplomas, based on three cycles of studies, attested by, respectively, the "Bachelor’s" degree, the "Master’s" degree and the "Doctoral" degree.

42. For the certification procedure in 2007, the complainant submitted a "diploma in Engineering and Information and Communication Technologies", issued by a French University. The Commission stated that, even assuming that, according to French legislation (Decree 99-747of 30 August 1999) the complainant’s diploma (obtained after four years of studies), must be regarded as the equivalent of a "Master’s" degree (obtained after five years of studies), it cannot, however, be inferred, for the purposes of determining the applicant’s number of points in the certification procedure, that the Commission is under an obligation to treat his diploma as the equivalent of two diplomas, namely, a "Bachelor’s" degree (obtained after three years of studies), and, subsequently, a "Master’s" degree (obtained on completion of a further two years of studies). In this context, the Commission referred to the judgment of the General Court (then the Court of First Instance) of 11 December 2008, in the case Reali v Commission[8]. The Commission considered, therefore, that the complainant's diploma was correctly assessed as a diploma awarded after the second cycle of university education (diplôme de deuxième cycle).

43. Furthermore, the Commission stated that, while carrying out the certification procedure, it had the duty to respect the principle of equality of treatment when assessing candidates' respective diplomas. The complainant's situation could not be compared to that of his colleague who obtained 10 points for his Master's degree. That official obtained a first diploma, and then continued studying in order to obtain a higher level diploma. For that reason, his Article 90(2) complaint resulted in his diploma being recognised as a Master's degree. This was not the case with the present complainant.

44. The Commission concluded that, in light of the above, it could not accept the Ombudsman's proposal for a friendly solution.

The complainant's further observations

45. In his observations, the complainant reiterated his view that the Commission should have assessed his diploma as a Master's degree. He stated that, under the French educational system at the time of his studies, there were various ways of obtaining a Master's degree.

46. The complainant repeated that he wished his diploma to be assessed in the same way as that of one of his colleagues who lodged a complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. In his view, the principle of equality of treatment had been manifestly infringed. He also argued that, when he lodged the Article 90(2) complaint, he submitted "the evidence that his diploma was a Master" and that he also had a second diploma (DEUG A)[9], and a "second Engineering diploma".

47. The complainant finally stated that, despite the Ombudsman's proposal, the Commission had not contacted the French authorities in order to determine the level of his diploma.

The Ombudsman's assessment after his friendly solution proposal

48. The Ombudsman pointed out once again that, when assessing the complainant's university diploma for the purposes of applying its certification procedure, the Commission could not disregard the relevant French legislation on university qualifications. This view was certainly supported by the judgment in the Reali case, to which the Commission itself referred[10], and the position which the institution took in that case, as reported in the above judgment[11].

49. The Ombudsman was therefore concerned that, in the present case, the Commission failed to implement his proposal. The institution neither contacted the French authorities, nor provided the Ombudsman with an explanation based on the relevant French legislation as to why it could not consider the complainant's diploma to be a "third cycle" diploma. By stating that "Even on the supposition that French legislation … entails equivalence…", the Commission referred instead to a hypothetical situation which might arise under French law. Even if the Commission's interpretation of the relevant French law was correct, its statement did not demonstrate that it had checked the relevant French legislation before adopting its position.

50. Furthermore, the Ombudsman noted that Article 5 of the GIPs did not stipulate that candidates participating in the certification procedure had to hold two consecutive diplomas (a Bachelor's degree obtained after three years of study, followed by a Master's degree, obtained after two years of study). Rather, it referred to the requirement of a third cycle of university education diploma (a 'third cycle diploma'), but did not clarify how many of years of study have to be completed in order for it to be recognised as a third cycle diploma.

51. While EPSO's chart may certainly be helpful in defining what constitutes a third cycle diploma, the equivalence between a third cycle diploma in terms of the Bologna system, and the diplomas awarded before the Bologna process started, needed to be determined on the basis of the relevant French legislation. The Commission did not demonstrate, however, that it took the aforementioned legislation into consideration.

52. Moreover, in the present case, the relevant question was whether the complainant's academic qualifications were sufficient for him to be appointed as an administrator[12]. It appeared that it was for the Member State issuing a diploma to determine the level of that qualification. The Commission should thus only have decided whether a candidate holding a relevant qualification was sufficiently qualified to become an administrator. This would have been in line with the principle of subsidiarity and the relevant case-law, to which the Ombudsman referred in paragraph 36 above. In other words, while it was indisputable that the Commission was under no obligation to treat the complainant's diploma as a third cycle diploma for the purposes of the certification procedure, the institution should first have checked the relevant French legislation in this regard, or at least the provision to which the complainant referred, in order to arrive at a sound judgement.

53. In light of the above, the Ombudsman considered that the Commission failed to provide valid reasons for not considering the complainant's diploma to be a third cycle diploma because it did not demonstrate that the relevant French legislation was taken into consideration. This was an instance of maladministration, as a result of which the Ombudsman was unable to reach a decision regarding the complainant's allegation.

54. In light of the above finding of maladministration, the Ombudsman made the following draft recommendation.

"The Commission should refer to the relevant French legislation when explaining why the complainant's diploma cannot be considered to be a third cycle diploma for the purposes of the certification procedure."

The arguments presented to the Ombudsman after his draft recommendation

The Commission's reply

55. In its reply, the Commission stated that it did not contact the relevant French authorities before the Ombudsman's draft recommendation because it considered that it already possessed the necessary information to prove that the complainant's diploma was not a third cycle diploma. Its alleged failure to contact the French relevant authorities thus did not constitute a case of maladministration, as stated by the Ombudsman in his draft recommendation.

56. The Commission stated that there was no doubt that the complainant's diploma was sufficient for him to be appointed as an administrator for the purposes of the certification procedure. The main issue was to decide whether, in view of the complainant's diploma, it had to grant him eight points (for a second cycle diploma) or ten points (for a third cycle diploma).

57. The Commission referred to the "NARIC International Guide to Qualifications in Education"[13] according to which an engineer diploma is obtained after a second cycle of studies. This was confirmed by the complainant himself in his observations of 22 March 2010, in which he wrote the following:

"Furthermore, an engineer diploma is also obtained after two cycles of studies: a first diploma of type DEUG, DUT[14], BTS[15] or Licence + the Engineer Diploma"[16].

58. The Commission further stated that, according to the UNESCO "International Handbook of Universities"[17], "[t]he Master grade has been awarded since 1999 to holders of … Engineering degrees" and is a "[U]niversity level second stage: deuxième cycle."

59. Furthermore, the school which issued the complainant's diploma, the Ecole nouvelle d'Ingénieurs en Communication, stated on its website[18] that the Engineering diploma is composed of two cycles: a basic cycle of two years and an Engineering cycle of three years.

60. The complainant obtained his "Licence" (first cycle) in 1989 and then studied his Engineering diploma from 1992 to 1994. Therefore, his diploma is a second cycle diploma since it is not possible to begin a third cycle straight after a first cycle of studies.

61. However, following the Ombudsman's draft recommendation, the Commission contacted the French public authority Centre français d'Information sur la reconnaissance académique et professionnelle des diplômes (ENIC-NARIC France[19]) with an eye to obtaining specific information on the complainant's diploma. In its reply of 1 February 2011[20], the French public authority confirmed that the complainant's diploma is a second cycle diploma in France.

62. The Commission concluded that, from the information already in its possession and its consultation with the French public authorities, the complainant's diploma is a second cycle qualification in France.

The complainant's further observations

63. In his observations, the complainant reiterated his view that the Commission should have assessed his diploma as a Master's degree and that the institution should have granted him 10 points for his diploma.

The Ombudsman's assessment after his draft recommendation

64. The Ombudsman thanks the Commission for the clarifications in its reply to his draft recommendation. He notes that, according to three different sources (NARIC, UNESCO's International Handbook of Universities and the website of the Ecole nouvelle d'Ingénieurs en Communication which issued the complainant's diploma) it emerges that the complainant's diploma is a second cycle qualification. It follows that the award of eight points for his Engineering diploma in the certification procedure was compliant with the relevant rules.

65. The Ombudsman welcomes the fact that the Commission followed his recommendation to contact the French authorities through ENIC- NARIC Networks. He considers that there are no grounds further to pursue his inquiry into this complaint.

66. In the present case, the information provided by the French authorities proved that the Commission's initial view on the level of the complainant's diploma was correct. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman is convinced that, if an uncertainty exists concerning the level of an official's diplomas, the Institution should request an authoritative opinion from the relevant national authorities before deciding on the matter. This is particularly important when the official challenges the Appointing Authority's assessment of his/her diplomas and is in line with principles of good administration. A further remark will be made below in this respect.

B. Conclusions

On the basis of his inquiry into this complaint, the Ombudsman closes it with the following conclusion:

There are no grounds for further inquiries into this complaint.

The complainant and the Commission will be informed of this decision.

Further remark

For the purposes of its HR management, the Commission could consider establishing a practice whereby it systematically contacts the relevant national authorities through ENIC- NARIC before deciding on the level of national diplomas of its staff, unless it already possesses up-to-date information from the said authorities.

 

P. Nikiforos Diamandouros

Done in Strasbourg on 4 July 2011

---

[1] Article 45a of the Staff Regulations reads as follows: "1. By way of derogation from Article 5 (3) (b) and (c), an official in function group AST may, from grade 5, be appointed to a post in function group AD, on condition that:

(a) he has been selected in accordance with the procedure laid down in paragraph 2 of this Article to take part in a compulsory training programme as set out in point (b) of this paragraph,

(b) he has completed a training programme defined by the Appointing Authority comprising a set of compulsory training modules, and

(c) he is on the list drawn up by the Appointing Authority of candidates who have passed an oral and written examination demonstrating that he has successfully taken part in the training programme mentioned under point (b) of this paragraph. The contents of this examination shall be determined in accordance with Article 7(2)(c) of Annex III.

2. The Appointing Authority shall draw up a draft list of AST officials selected to take part in the aforesaid training programme on the basis of their periodical reports referred to in Article 43 and their level of education and training and taking account of the needs of the services. This draft shall be submitted to a joint committee for its opinion."

[2] The Joint Committee is in charge of dealing with appeals against decisions of the Appointing Authority concerning promotion or the award of merit points.

[3] Under the Bologna Process, each year of higher level education is assigned a certain number of credit points. For a Master 2, the number of credit points amounts to 300.

[4] The aim of the Bologna Process is to create a European Higher Education Area by 2010, in which students can choose from a wide and transparent range of high quality courses and benefit from smooth recognition procedures. The Bologna Declaration of June 1999 has put in motion a series of reforms needed to make European Higher Education more compatible and comparable, and more competitive and attractive for students and scholars from both within Europe and from other continents.

[5] The complainant submitted printouts from the website of the French Ministry of Education (see http://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/cid20186/schema-des-etudes-superieures-en-france.html).

[6] See, by analogy, Case C-108/88 Jaenicke Cendoya v Commission [1988] ECR 2739, paragraphs 49, 550 and 51, and Case T-2/90 Ferreira de Freitas v Commission [1991] ECR II-103. In these two cases, the respective courts decided that the requirement of a university degree as a condition for admission to the competition is necessarily to be construed in light of how such a degree is defined in the legislation of the Member State in which the candidate completed the studies on which he relies.

[7] Case C-47/07 P Masdar (UK) Ltd v Commission of the European Communities [2008] ECR I-9761- paragraph 93.

[8] Case F-136/06 Reali v Commission, judgment of 11 December 2008, not yet published in the ECR.

[9] DEUG is the French abbreviation for "Diplôme d'Etudes Universitaires Générales".

[10] See paragraphs 27 and 35, for instance, of the judgment in the Reali case F-136/06:

"27. Within the context of measures of organisation of procedure, the Tribunal, pursuant to Article 55(2)(d) of its Rules of Procedure, asked the Commission to send to it the relevant existing documents which outlined the implementation of the ‘Bologna Process’ in the Member States.

35. Since, in the present case, it is relevant to have regard to the Italian legislation on university qualifications for the purpose of applying the provisions of the CEOS, as the Commission itself submits, the Commission cannot object, on the basis of Article 42 of the Rules of Procedure, to the Tribunal’s taking into consideration the provisions of the Decree of 5 May 2004 for the purposes of resolving the dispute."

[11] See paragraphs 69, 70, and 73, for instance, in the judgment of the Reali Case:

"69.Thus, in the absence of Community rules on the level of academic qualifications, the only appropriate source is necessarily national law. The Commission, relying on Jaenicke Cendoya v Commission, submits that when a publication or Community decision includes a mention of academic qualifications, that publication or decision is implicitly making a reference back to national law.

70. In the present case, the Commission argues that it took the relevant national provisions into account. First, it held that the applicant fulfilled the condition set out in Article 2(1)(d) of the GIP. Secondly, when it came to determining the applicant’s grade, the Commission calculated the duration of the professional experience in the light of the actual periods of employment indicated on the grading sheet drawn up by the administration and attached as an annex to the defence. In this respect, it had to calculate the experience acquired by the applicant from the date on which he actually obtained the diploma satisfying the minimum conditions for recruitment, in accordance with Article 2 of the GIP. Those minimum qualifications were acquired by the applicant when he obtained the ‘Laurea in scienze agrarie’ in August 1985. Therefore, no professional experience relating to an earlier date could be taken into account.

73. Secondly, the Commission argues, the Italian legislation alone must be taken into account. Such interpretation of the equivalence of diplomas as Italian universities might have chosen to adopt is not decisive."

[12] In the Reali case, the question concerned how to calculate the duration of the applicant's experience.

[13] "International Guide to Qualifications in Education" -"NARIC" ("National Academic Recognition Information Centres"), 4th edition, pp 310-311.

[14] In French, DUT stands for "Diplôme Universitaire Technique".

[15] In French, BTS stands for "Brevet de Technicien Supérieur".

[16] Translation from the French original version: "Par ailleurs, l'obtention d'un diplôme d'ingénieur se fait également en deux cycles: un premier diplôme de type DEUG, DUT, BTS ou Licence + le diplôme d'ingénieur."

[17] International Handbook of Universities, 2010 UNESCO, pp 1164-1165.

[18] See http://www.telecom-lille.eu/formations_ingenieurs

[19] "ENIC" stands "European Network of Information Centres".

[20] In its reply to the Commission, the Centre français d'Information sur la reconnaissance académique et professionnelle des diplômes (ENIC-NARIC France) stated the following (French original version):

"Ce diplôme a effectivement été crée en France en 1990, par l'arrêté du 5 novembre 1990 portant création du diplôme d'ingénieur en technologie de l'Information et de la Communication de l'Université de Lille I et de l'Institut national des Télécommunications. Le diplôme d'ingénieur est un diplôme de 2ème cycle en France."