Strasbourg, 27 September 2006

Dear Mr X,

On 15 April 2005, you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning your participation in two selection procedures organised by the European Commission's Delegation in an African country.

On 19 April 2005, my services wrote you a message inviting you to re-send the documents that you had apparently attached to your complaint form because it had not been possible to download them. You forwarded the relevant documents on 19 April 2005.

On 30 May 2005, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the Commission. The Commission sent the Italian translation of its opinion on 26 July 2005 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations by 30 September 2005, if you so wished. No observations have been received from you.

During a telephone conversation of 21 July 2006, you informed my services that you considered the matter of your complaint to have been settled by the Commission.

I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made. I apologise for the length of time taken in order to conclude the present inquiry.

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the relevant facts are, in summary, as follows.

The complainant ("X") participated in two selection procedures which were launched by the European Commission's Delegation in an African country (the "Delegation") to recruit local agents for technical assistance (agent local d'assistance techinque, "ALAT").

X was excluded from both selection procedures. Since considered that he fulfilled the criteria required, X contacted the Delegation by e-mail on 21 October 2004 and asked to know the criteria on which the relevant procedures had been based.

On 29 October 2004, the Delegation informed X that the selection criteria adopted in the framework of the relevant procedures were confidential and could therefore not be made public.

In his complaint to the Ombudsman, X claimed that he should be informed of the selection criteria adopted by the Commission for the purpose of the relevant selection procedures.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

In its opinion, the Commission stated that X's applications had been admitted since the criteria of nationality, residence, education and professional experience were fulfilled. Afterwards, all admitted applications (including X's) had been examined and marked by a group of three members of the Delegation, on the basis of the further criteria laid down in the recruitment notice.

Afterwards, an evaluation committee of five members of the Delegation made a further analysis of the relevant candidatures and established a shortlist of the three best candidates for each post advertised, taking into account the further relevant requirements in accordance with the recruitment notice. X was not among the three best candidates for either of the two posts and his name had therefore not been shortlisted.

Regarding the substance of the complaint, the Commission recognised that the reply given by the Delegation to X's message of 21 October 2004 was indeed wrong in stating that the selection criteria were confidential and that they could not be disclosed. In fact, it should have been indicated to X that what was confidential was the evaluation of each candidate's application on the basis of the selection criteria and not the criteria themselves, which were those laid down in the recruitment notice published by the Delegation, distributed throughout the network of Commission Delegations and posted in the embassies and other international bodies based in capital of the African country concerned. X appeared to have been aware of these relevant requirements for the two posts since, in his correspondence with the Delegation, X referred to the recruitment notices. Since the successful candidates were to carry out their job in Africa, the evaluation committee took the view that the knowledge of Africa of all candidates also needed to be taken into consideration. Despite the fact that, in this field, X obtained the highest score, the overall evaluation of candidates based on all the requirements laid down in the recruitment notice had resulted in the selection of other candidates who had been considered more suitable for the posts.

In conclusion, the Commission recognised that an error had been made when X was told that the selection criteria were confidential. What should have been said instead was that, as established by the case-law of the Community courts, the deliberations made by the Selection Boards concerning individual candidates are covered by the principle of confidentiality. The Commission further stated that this error had not been relevant for the selection procedure, which had been carried out in full compliance with the established criteria, and these criteria had been applied to all candidates including the complainant.

The complainant's observations

No observations were received from the complainant on the Commission's opinion.

However, on the occasion of a telephone conversation on 21 July 2006, X stated that he considered the case as settled on the basis of the Commission's opinion in which the institution had recognised that the reply given to him by the Delegation on 29 May 2004 was not appropriate. X further thanked the Ombudsman and its service for their work.

THE DECISION

1 The complainant's claim

1.1 The complainant ("X") participated in two selection procedures launched by the European Commission's Delegation in an African country (the "Delegation") to recruit local agents for technical assistance (agent local d'assistance techinque, "ALAT"). Since X was excluded from both selection procedures, on 21 October 2004 X contacted the Delegation and asked to know the criteria on which the relevant procedures had been based. In its reply of 29 October 2004, the Delegation informed X that the selection criteria adopted in the framework of the relevant procedures were confidential and could therefore not be made public.

In his complaint to the European Ombudsman, X claimed that he should be informed of the selection criteria adopted by the Commission for the purpose of the two selection procedures.

1.2 In its opinion, the Commission recognised that the reply given by the Delegation to X's message of 21 October 2004 was indeed wrong in stating that the selection criteria were confidential and that they could not be disclosed. In fact, it should have been indicated to X that what was confidential was the evaluation given to each candidate on the basis of the selection criteria and not the criteria themselves which were indeed those laid down in the recruitment notice.

The Commission further stated that since the successful candidates were to carry out their job in Africa, the evaluation committee took the view that the knowledge of Africa of all candidates also needed to be taken into consideration. Despite the fact that, in this field, X obtained the highest score, the overall evaluation of candidates based on all the requirements laid down in the recruitment notice had resulted in the selection of other candidates who had been considered more suitable for the posts.

1.3 No written observations were received by X on the Commission's opinion.

1.4 However, on the occasion of a telephone conversation on 21 July 2006, X stated that he considered the case as already closed and settled on the basis of the Commission's opinion in which the institution had recognised that the reply given to him by the Delegation on 29 May 2004 was not appropriate. X further thanked the Ombudsman and his service for their work.

2 Conclusion

It appears from the Commission’s comments and X's observations that the Commission has taken steps to settle the matter and has thereby satisfied X. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The President of the Commission will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS