Dear Mr F.,
On 4 January 1999, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission. You alleged that the Commission's recruitment policy in the case of competition COM/A/1/1998 in which you participated, constituted an instance of maladministration.
On 28 January 1999, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 12 May 1999. I forwarded the opinion to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. I received your observations on 24 June 1999.
I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complaint, the relevant facts were as follows:
The complainant participated in competition procedure COM/A/1/1998 for the post of Head of Delegation of the Commission in Bratislava in the Directorate-General " External relations: Europe and the New Independent States, common foreign and security policy, External Service", published in OJ C 29 A of 27 January 1998.
In May 1998, the complainant was informed by the Commission that his name was put on the reserve list, valid until 31 December 1999.
In October 1998, the complainant received a letter from the relevant Commission service informing him that the Commission had decided to appoint another candidate whose profile "it considered corresponded best to the qualifications required for the post in question".
In his appeal against this decision, the complainant put forward that he had received a letter from the Commission stating that he was on the list of selected candidates and that this list of selected candidates would still be valid until 31 December 1999.
In its letter of 3 December 1998, the Commission confirmed that the complainant's name was on the reserve list for the post in question. The Commission stated further, that the fact that the complainant was placed on the reserve list did not include an automatic employment offer. The letter stated that the Commission chose between the different candidates on the reserve list and that it decided to appoint another candidate.
Against this background, the complainant lodged the complaint with the European Ombudsman. He alleged that there was a contradiction in the information provided by the Commission and that as a result of his relying on the original information given, he was deprived of other career possibilities with the Austrian Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion
In its observations, the Commission confirmed its previous decision as regards the procedure followed by the Commission. It pointed out that after his appeal, the complainant was informed that an entry on the reserve list did not entail a guarantee to obtain a post. Furthermore, it stated that as the post in question was given to one of the candidates, the reserve list was naturally closed. The Commission stated that there was therefore no contradiction in the information given to the complainant.
The complainant's observations
The complainant pointed out that his name was the first on the reserve list and that, in connection with the announcement that the list was valid until 31 December 1999, he had to conclude that he would be the one to be nominated by the Commission for the post in question.

THE DECISION

1 Rights of a person on a reserve list
1.1 The complainant alleged that the fact that the Commission entered his name on a reserve list with a validity until 31 December 1999 made him believe that he would obtain a suitable position and that therefore, he did not apply for other positions at the Austrian Ministry for Foreign Affairs. He also mentioned that he was listed first on the reserve list.
1.2 The Commission confirmed that the complainant was informed that his name was put on a reserve list with the validity until 31 December 1999. It also stated that the complainant's entry on the reserve list did not entail a guarantee to obtain a post. The Ombudsman's services contacted the Commission orally and were informed by the relevant official that the list was classified in alphabetical order and therefore, the position on the list had no bearing on the selection as a candidate.
1.3 It follows from the case law of the Court of Justice that the fact that the name of a person appears on a reserve list does not confer upon this person an entitlement to a post with the Community institutions.
1.4 As regards the validity of the reserve list until the end of 1999, the Commission stated in its opinion that the reserve list was naturally closed when a candidate for the post in question was found.
1.5 There appears to be no evidence that the selection board has violated any rule or principle binding upon it, by not choosing the complainant for the post in question. Therefore there appears to have been no maladministration by the Commission.
2 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