Dear Mrs F.,
On 2 June 1998 you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning your non-admission to open competition COM/LA/1058 organised by the European Commission.
On 7 September 1998, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 13 November 1998 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. You did not send observations on the Commission's opinion.
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 were as follows:
The complainant was refused to participate in open competition COM/LA/1058 (Dutch language interpreters) of the European Commission, because she failed to provide proof of 2 years' work experience. The complainant observed that she finished her studies in 1992 and since worked as an independent conference-interpreter. She therefore considers that she had enough work experience.
Further to the decision of the Selection Board of 12 March 1998 rejecting her application to the competition, the complainant wrote to the Selection Board on 6 April 1998 (within the 30 working days indicated in the competition notice) asking for a review of the decision. The complainant enclosed to her request a certificate by the Belgian House of Representatives which certified that she had worked since more than 3 years as interpreter for its services. However, on 28 April 1998 the Selection Board confirmed its previous decision stating that the certificate sent by the complainant, which could eventually be regarded as proof, had been sent after the deadline for submitting applications.
The complainant therefore lodged the present complaint to the Ombudsman alleging 1) that she should have been admitted to the competition and 2) that the possibility, mentioned in the competition notice, of asking a review of the Selection Board's decision within 30 working days was purely theoretical, as the Selection Board finally referred to the deadline for applications.

THE INQUIRY

The Commision's opinion
The Commission in its opinion first recalled that the deadline for applications was 28 November 1997, date on which the complainant had sent her application.
According to point III.B.3 of the competition notice, candidates must have had at least two years of graduate-level experience since obtaining the university degree for admission to the competition. The Selection Board did not admit the complainant to the competition because she did not provide the obligatory supporting documents before the above date, enabling the Board to verify that the information on the application was correct.
The Selection Board reconsidered the complainant's application, but on 28 April 1998 confirmed its original decision not to admit the complainant to the competition, because the request and the work certificate arrived after the deadline for sending and postmarking applications which was 28 November 1997 according to point X.2 in the competition notice.
The Commission observed that the competition notice and the guide to candidates published in the OJ C 312 A of 14 October 1997 were explicit with regard to the obligatory supporting documents related to professional experience. According to point III.B.3 of the competition notice, details of this experience must be given on the application form. And point X.1 of the competition notice stated that "photocopies of documents showing that candidates satisfy the special conditions must be attached so that the Selection Board can check that they correspond to the information provided on the application form". Also, point X.2 stated that "the application form, together with the photocopies of supporting documents, should be sent by registered post and postmarked not later than 28.11.1997". Before completing the application form, candidates were asked to read carefully the guide contained in the same issue as the notice. Point B.2 of this guide informs candidates that supporting documents must be provided confirming the length and level of professional experience.
The Commission also stated that detailed rules governing the admission of candidates to open competitions, which are universally applicable to all candidates, are essential in order to ensure equality of treatment of all candidates. Candidates sign a declaration at the end of the application form recognising the fact that their application may be invalidated if they fail to provide photocopies of employment or contract(s).
With regard to point IV of the competition notice (requests for reconsideration of the Selection Board's decisions), the Commission pointed out that a positive answer to a request for reconsideration can only be granted on the basis of a formal request submitted according to the rules set out in the competition notice and in case a Selection Board, on the basis of such a further analysis finds that it made a mistake with regard to one of the legally binding rules on admission. Among these legally binding rules is the obligation of the candidates to submit supporting documents before the date explicitly mentioned in the competition notice.
The Commission finally referred to a judgement of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 1998(1) in which the Court underlined that the Selection Boards, which are legally bound by the competition notice, can only take into consideration such corroborating documents which are sent before the deadline as stipulated in the competition notice. The Selection Boards are by no means obliged to ask the candidates to furnish additional documents.
The complainant's observations
The complainant did not send observations on the Commission's opinion.

THE DECISION

1 The alleged non-admission of the complainant to competition COM/LA/1058
1.1 The complainant alleged that she should have been admitted to participate in the competition. The Commission referred to the explicit indications in the competition notice and the guide to candidates and observed that the complainant had not send within the deadline the supporting documents concerning her professional experience.
1.2 The Ombudsman notes that the competition notice, as well as the guide to candidates contained explicit and clear indications with regard to the supporting documents concerning professional experience which candidates had to send together with their application, and this before the deadline. More particularly did point X.2 of the competition notice state that "the application form, together with the photocopies of supporting documents, should be sent by registered post and postmarked not later than 28 November 1997". Moreover, at the end of the application form, the candidates have to sign a declaration which draws their attention on the fact that their application may be invalidated if they fail to provide photocopies of employment or contract(s). Also, in point B.2 of the guide to candidates, candidates are informed that supporting documents must be provided confirming the length and level of professional experience. In the present case, the complainant sent her supporting documents only on 6 April 1998, i.e. 4 months after the deadline for applications.
1.3 The decision of the Selection Board not to admit the complainant to the competition, because she failed to send supporting documents concerning her professional experience by the deadline of 28 November 1997, is therefore in compliance with the terms of the competition notice, which is the only legally binding text for both the candidates and the Selection Board. The Ombudsman therefore found no maladministration with regard to this aspect of the case.
2 The request for reconsideration on basis of additional supporting documents
2.1 The complainant alleged that the possibility, mentioned in the competition notice, of requesting a reconsideration of the Selection Board's decision within 30 working days was purely theoretical, as the Selection Board in its confirmatory decision referred to the deadline for applications. The Commission observed that a positive answer to a request for reconsideration can only be granted in case the Selection Board, on the basis of a further analysis, finds that it made a mistake with regard to one of the legally binding rules on admission. Among these legally binding rules is the obligation of the candidates to submit supporting documents before the date explicitly mentioned in the competition notice.
2.2 In its judgement of 16 September 1998, the Court of First Instance has stated that the Selection Boards, which are legally bound by the competition notice, can only take into consideration such corroborating documents which are sent before the deadline stipulated in the competition notice(2). The Ombudsman notes that the complainant failed to send, before the application deadline, supporting documents relating to her professional experience. The decision of the Selection Board of 28 April 1998 which confirmed the original decision of 12 March 1998 was therefore in compliance with the terms of the competition notice. On basis of the above considerations, the Ombudsman found no instance of maladministration with regard to this aspect of the case.
3 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 about this decision.
Yours sincerely
Jacob SÖDERMAN

---

(1) Case T-215/97; Jouhki v Commission, [1998] ECR Staff Cases, IA-0503.

(2) Case T-215/97; Jouhki v Commission, [1998] ECR Staff Cases, IA-0503.