Dear Mrs M.,
On 23 December 1997, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the decision to exclude you from an open competition organised by the European Parliament, for a local agent post in its kindergarten in Luxembourg.
On 30 January 1998, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Parliament. The Parliament sent its opinion on 4 March 1998, and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations. On 14 April 1998, I received your observations.
I am writing now to let you know the result of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

The background to the complaint is in brief the following:
In December 1997, the complainant applied to take part in a competition for a permanent local agent post in the kindergarten of the European Parliament. Mrs M. had already been employed temporarily for four years in the kindergarten of the Parliament.
On 22 December, the Selection Board of the competition rejected her application. The decision only indicated that the profile of the complainant did not correspond to the one requested. No supplementary explanations were offered, except that no further appeals could be filed against this decision.
The complainant thereafter lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman, on the basis that the refusal of the Selection Board was unjustified, and had not taken into account her professional experience.

THE INQUIRY

The Parliament's opinion
In its opinion, the Parliament justified that the exclusion of the complainant was due to the absence of appropriate documentary evidence in her application which could show her professional experience.
Nonetheless, following the further appeal of the complainant, her situation had been reconsidered by the Selection Board. Taking into account the practical experience she had gained during her work in the kindergarten of the European Parliament, the Selection Board reconsidered its rejection, and decided to invite her to sit for the written test of the competition on 5 February 1998.
The complainant's observations
In her observations on the Parliament's opinion, the complainant confirmed her admission to the written tests of the competition, as she had requested, and her satisfaction for the outcome of the Ombudsman's actions.
The complainant added in her letter, however, that she had been informed by the Parliament in a letter of 2 April 1998 that in view of the results of the competition, her name had not been selected, and had not been included in the reserve list. The complainant was surprised by such an outcome, in particular taken into account her previous work experience. In her letter she raised a series of questions regarding her future professional situation, and referred also to the way she had initially been hired without having passed any competition. The complainant referred to these questions in further letters to the Ombudsman of 15 April 1998, and 24 April 1998.
As this aspect of the case was not part of the original complaint, and as the institution had therefore no opportunity to comment on it, the Ombudsman does not deem it appropriate to consider this new allegation.

THE DECISION

On the basis of the information provided by the complainant and the opinion submitted by the European Parliament, the Ombudsman concludes that the case has been settled by the European Parliament to the complainant's full satisfaction.
Against this background, the Ombudsman decides to close the case.
The President of the European Commission will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely,
Jacob SÖDERMAN