Dear Mr V.,

On 22 February 2001 you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the selection procedure COM/R/A/03/1999 organised by DG Research of the European Commission.

On 30 March 2001, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 20 June 2001 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 8 August 2001.

I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant applied for the selection procedure COM/R/A/03/1999 and passed the written tests. He was invited to the oral test, which he attended on 29 November 2000. On 4 January 2001, the Selection Committee informed the complainant that the overall mark which he obtained 112 out of 200 was not sufficient to place him on the reserve list. On 22 January 2001, the complainant wrote to DG Research requesting for a review of his candidature. On 29 January 2001, DG Research replied to the complainant's letter explaining that while the Selection Committee was satisfied with his command of Greek and English, it did not find that the complainant displayed a sufficiently good knowledge in the field of nuclear fusion. Furthermore, an adequate appreciation on the complainant's part of the management, organisational and in some cases technical problems was lacking. The Selection Committee concluded that its marks were fair and accurate.

The complainant alleges irregularities in the assessment of his qualifications in the oral test of the selection procedure COM/A/R/03/1999. According to the complainant, the decision of the Selection Committee not to include him on a reserve list was unfair on grounds that in the discussion part (in Greek) of the oral test he only obtained 7/20 points although he is a native Greek. According to the complainant, he is a practising scientist in the fusion field and responsible for research programmes. He was awarded only 5/20 points for his presentation and 19/40 points for his knowledge of the field.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

The Commission made the following remarks:

The complainant was invited to the oral test of the selection procedure COM/R/A/03/1999 after having successfully applied for the competition and having passed the written tests, which he attended on 29 November 2000. He was informed, on 4 January 2001, that the overall mark which he obtained 112 out of 200 was not sufficient to place him on the reserve list.

On 22 January 2001, the complainant wrote to the "Staff Policy" Unit protesting against his results which, in his view, must be attributable to a "serious mistake or an error". Pointing out that he is Greek by birth. The complainant chose English as his main language because he had studied and worked for 21 years in English-speaking countries and he was a member of the United Kingdom Institute of Linguists. The complainant also noted that he had been Director of the Advanced Ceramics Laboratory at the National Research Centre Demokritos in Greece. According to the complainant, an independent expert had assured him that his written summary for the final stage of the oral test was well above the standard expected.

On 29 January 2001, the new "Staff Policy" Head of Unit informed the complainant that the Selection Committee had confirmed its marks and, consequently, upheld its initial decision not to place him on the reserve list. He pointed out that, while the committee considered the applicant's knowledge of Greek and English to be satisfactory, he did not possess sufficient knowledge of all nuclear fusion aspects. In particular, he lacked a proper grasp of management and of organisational, and to a certain extent technical, problems. Consequently, although the committee was satisfied with the applicant's presentation, the marks which he obtained were a correct reflection of its assessment of his knowledge.

The Commission stated that according to the notice of selection: "The selection procedure is designed to identify those applicants who, on the basis on their scientific knowledge and professional qualifications, are best qualified to fill the post of Chief Scientific Assistant. The European Commission is drawing up a reserve list for this key action of high-level, experienced scientists, engineers and scientific administrators to manage experimental, operational and administrative activities involving complex installations. All disciplines related to research into fusion by magnetic confinement and the engineering of large mechanical or electronic nuclear systems are involved".

In a note dated 29 January 2001 on the re-examination of the complainant's results the Selection Committee added that: "Also, adequate appreciation on his part of the management, organisational and even in some cases technical problems, that needed to be overcome to progress fusion research, was lacking. The Selection Committee's marks reflected this finding. With respect to Dr. V.'s summary of the interview, the Selection Committee was satisfied with the presentation and layout but had reservations regarding the content."

According to the Commission, the re-examination of the complainant's results has not led the Selection Committee to alter its earlier decision.

The complainant's observations

The complainant maintained his complaint and stated that the original notice of selection clearly implied that persons with experience in any aspect of thermonuclear fusion are invited to apply. According to the complainant, this does not mean all aspects of thermonuclear fusion. Furthermore, the complainant criticised the linguistic qualifications and knowledge on thermonuclear fusion of the members of the Selection Committee.

THE DECISION

1 Irregularities in the of assessment of the oral test

1.1 The complainant alleges irregularities in the assessment of his qualifications in the oral test of the selection procedure COM/A/R/01/1999. According to the complainant, the decision of the Selection Committee not to include him on a reserve list was unfair on grounds that in the discussion part (in Greek) of the oral test he only obtained 7/20 points although he is a native Greek. According to the complainant, he is a practising scientist in the fusion field and responsible for research programmes. He was awarded only 5/20 points for his presentation and 19/40 points for his knowledge of the field.

1.2 In its opinion the Commission reiterated what was already stated in the reply from the Selection Committee dated 29 January 2001. Although the Selection Committee was satisfied with his command of Greek and English, it did not find that the complainant displayed a sufficiently good knowledge in the field of nuclear fusion. Furthermore, an adequate appreciation on the complainant's part of the management, organisational and in some cases technical problems was lacking. The Selection Committee concluded that its marks were fair and accurate. According to the notice of selection, the selection procedure was designed to identify those applicants who, on the basis on their scientific knowledge and professional qualifications, were best qualified to fill the post of Chief Scientific Assistant. The Commission explained that the Selection Committee had added that with respect to the complainant's summary of the interview, the Selection Committee was satisfied with the presentation and layout but had reservations regarding the content.

1.3 The Ombudsman considers that the explanations provided by the Commission are reasonable and that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to establish his allegation. Therefore, the Ombudsman has found no instance of maladministration.

2 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Commission. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

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

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN