THE BACKGROUND TO THE COMPLAINT

1. On 28 September 2006, the European Personnel Selection office (EPSO) published Open Competition EPSO/AD/73/06 to constitute a reserve list of linguistic administrators in the field of conference interpretation[1]. The complainant applied to take part in this competition.

2. On 13 February 2007, EPSO informed the complainant that she did not have the required academic qualifications because the diploma she submitted was not a "conference interpreter" diploma (interprete di conferenza), but rather a "translator and interpreter" diploma (traduttore e interprete). She was therefore not admitted to the competition.

3. The complainant wrote to EPSO arguing that her exclusion from the competition was erroneous. She stated that even though her diploma contained no specific reference to conference interpretation, it complied with the requirements of the Notice of Competition. Furthermore, her diploma was the only one existing in Italy at the time she obtained it (in 2000). She, therefore, asked EPSO to reconsider her application and to admit her to the competition.

4. In its reply, EPSO explained that the Selection Board had reviewed her application and confirmed its decision. The Board pointed out that the nature of conference interpretation requires a person to carry out both simultaneous and consecutive interpretation. It added that the complainant's application did not contain sufficient proof that she possessed the required training in both of these skills. The complainant then wrote a further message to EPSO in which she listed the exams she had taken during her studies at the Scuola superiore per interpreti e traduttori.

5. On 10 April and 14 May 2007, EPSO replied to the complainant reiterating its position. On 28 May 2007, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE INQUIRY

6. On 27 July 2007, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the following allegations and claim:

Allegations:

1. The complainant's exclusion from Open Competition EPSO/AD/73/06 on the grounds that she did not comply with the academic qualifications required by the Notice of Competition was based on an erroneous assessment of her academic qualifications;
2. EPSO failed to explain in sufficient detail the reasons for its decision to exclude her from the competition.

Claim:

EPSO should admit the complainant to Open Competition EPSO/AD/73/06.

THE INQUIRY

7. In July 2007, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry and asked EPSO for an opinion on the complainant's allegations and claim. In his letter opening the present inquiry, the Ombudsman asked EPSO to provide detailed reasons explaining why the complainant's degree did not comply with the requirements of the competition. He also asked EPSO to specify which information the complainant should have provided, in addition to her degree, to show that her application complied with the requirements of the Notice of Competition.

8. On 30 November 2007, EPSO sent its opinion, which was then forwarded to the complainant on 20 December 2007. On 27 February 2008, the Ombudsman received the complainant's observations.

THE OMBUDSMAN'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

A. The allegation that the complainant's exclusion from the open competition was based on an erroneous assessment of her academic qualifications

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

The complainant's position

9. The complainant argued that her "translator and interpreter" diploma issued by the Scuola superiore per interpreti e traduttori complied with the requirement of the relevant Notice of Competition. Therefore, her exclusion from the open competition was, in her view, based on an erroneous assessment of her academic qualifications. She pointed out that her degree was the only one existing in Italy at the time she obtained it. Moreover, even though the degree did not explicitly state that it covered conference interpretation, she argued that it complied with the requirements of the Notice of Competition.

EPSO's opinion

10. After assessing the complainant's application, the Selection Board concluded that it did not meet the criteria set out in points A.II.1.a) and A.II.2 of the Notice of Competition. It made the following remarks:

11. To carry out the work of a "conference interpreter", suitable candidates must be able to perform simultaneous and consecutive interpretation. They, therefore, need to have a "conference interpreter" diploma, which necessarily covers these two skills.

12. The complainant's application only contained the following documents:

1. A Degree in Foreign Languages and Literature[2];
2. An Interpreter and Translator Diploma[3];
3. A Translator and Interpreter Diploma with a specialisation in interpretation[4].

13. None of the qualifications submitted by the complainant explicitly mentioned that they covered the skills of a "conference interpreter" and she provided no further information in this regard. Therefore, on the basis of the information she submitted, the Selection Board could not assume that the complainant possessed the relevant skills required by the Notice of Competition, namely, the ability to carry out both simultaneous and consecutive interpretation.

14. EPSO noted that there are several interpretation techniques. Candidates, therefore, had to prove, by presenting all the relevant supporting documents, that they had studied the techniques which were required for the competition in question. The Notice of Competition expressly stated that "[i]t is your [the candidate's] responsibility to make sure that your application form duly completed, signed and accompanied by all the supporting documents, is sent in time by registered post."

15. According to EPSO, the complainant did not act with due care when submitting her application. Only on 26 March 2007 did the complainant send further documents to prove that she had attended courses and taken exams on simultaneous and consecutive interpretation during her studies. Since the complainant only sent this information after the deadline for application had expired, the Selection Board could not take it into account. EPSO further stated that no other candidates who provided the same degree as the complainant had been admitted to the open competition in the absence of any other relevant evidence concerning their studies.

The complainant's observations

16. The complainant maintained her complaint.

17. Since (a) the Notice of Competition did not contain a detailed list of the documents to be submitted with the application, and (b) the choice of the documents to submit was at the candidates' discretion, the complainant decided to attach only the qualifications she considered relevant. The diplomas that she submitted were the only ones existing in this field in Italy at the time she obtained them. The complainant, therefore, considered that no additional documents were necessary.

18. In its letter of 13 February 2007, EPSO did not explain why her qualifications failed to meet the criteria and did not advise her as to which documents to provide in order to allow the Selection Board to assess her competences. It was only after the Selection Board's review that EPSO, by letter of 23 March 2007, informed her that the documents she submitted did not prove that she possessed skills in simultaneous and consecutive interpretation.

19. On the basis of this clarification, on 26 March 2007, the complainant sent EPSO a copy of the exams she had taken throughout her studies to become an intepreter, including those in simultaneous and consecutive interpretation. She argued that the delay in presenting the relevant documentation should not to be attributed to her, but rather to EPSO which failed to provide adequate reasons for its position in its letter dated 13 February 2008.

20. The complainant also mentioned Case T-133/89[5] Burban v Parliament, in which the Court of First Instance held that a Selection Board has the possibility to request additional information from a candidate if it has any doubts regarding the significance of documents submitted with an application.

The Ombudsman's assessment

21. According to established case-law, the selection board in a competition is bound by the wording and, in particular, by the conditions of admission laid down in the relevant notice of competition[6]. The essential function of a notice of competition is to give those interested in applying the most accurate information possible about the conditions of eligibility for the posts. This enables them to decide whether or not they should apply[7]. Candidates should provide the selection board with all the information and documents that are deemed necessary for it to assess their compliance with the criteria set out in the relevant notice of competition[8]. The board can only take into consideration the documents and information provided by the candidate[9]. The possibility for it to request additional information from candidates, if it has doubts regarding the exact significance of a document submitted, is no more than a 'possibility'. A selection board is under no obligation to ask candidates to produce documents in addition to those enclosed with their application[10].

22. When assessing the applicants' qualifications, a selection board possesses a wide amount of discretion[11]. The Ombudsman's review is, therefore, limited to examining whether a board's assessment is tainted by a manifest error.

23. In the present case, the Notice of Competition for Open Competition EPSO/AD/73/06 foresaw three alternative conditions for admission. In accordance with point A.II.1, Open competition EPSO/AD/73/06 was, in fact, open to candidates who, on the closing date for online registration, had:

"(i) successfully completed at least three years of training as a conference interpreter and obtained the relevant university-level qualifications, or (ii) successfully completed a full course of university education lasting at least three years and obtained a degree AND have one year's proven experience working as a conference interpreter, or successfully completed a full course of university education lasting at least three years and obtained a degree AND have one year's proven experience working as a conference interpreter."

24. Furthermore, it contained a detailed description of the duties to be carried out. Among others, it specified that the relevant work "can entail either simultaneous or consecutive interpreting". As regards the documents to enclose with the application form, the Notice of Competition indicated that candidates had to give full details of, among others, their studies and training. Moreover, it clearly and unambiguously stated that the full paper application had to be sent to EPSO by registered post before the closing date for registration, 14 November 2006.

25. In the present case, none of the qualifications submitted by the complainant explicitly referred to the fact they covered conference interpretation. It was only on 26 March 2007, after the relevant deadline for submission of documents had expired that she sent further documents to prove that she had attended courses and taken exams on simultaneous and consecutive interpretation during her studies. The Ombudsman further notes that the complainant herself, who had the possibility to decide which supporting documents submit with her application, stated that she enclosed those documents she considered to be relevant at the time.

26. With regard to the possibility provided to the Selection Board to have requested clarifications regarding the documents submitted with her application, the Ombudsman, taking into account the relevant case-law referred to above in paragraph 21, does not consider that he has received any pertinent arguments or evidence demonstrating maladministration on the part of the Board.

27. In light of the above findings, the Ombudsman concludes that there has been no maladministration corresponding to this allegation.

B. The allegation of EPSO's failure to explain the reasons for excluding the complainant from the open competition

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

The complainant's position

28. The complainant argued that EPSO's letter of 13 February 2007 concerning her exclusion from Open Competition EPSO/AD/73/06 was too generical and not sufficiently reasoned.

EPSO's opinion

29. EPSO explained that the complainant was excluded from Open Competition EPSO/AD/73/06 because the Selection Board concluded that her application did not meet the academic qualification criteria set out in the Notice of Competition.

30. In reply to the Ombudsman's request that it specify which information the complainant should have provided to prove her qualifications, EPSO stressed that she should have submitted evidence of her skills in simultaneous and consecutive interpretation. The choice of the documents to submit was at her own discretion.

The complainant's observations

31. The complainant maintained her allegation.

The Ombudsman's assessment

32. According to settled case-law[12], the statement of reasons for a measure must be appropriate to that measure and must disclose clearly the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted it. This should be done in such a way so as to enable (a) the persons concerned to understand the basis for it and (b) the reviewing bodies to examine its legality. Additionally, the extent of the duty must be determined on the basis of the particular facts of each case[13].

33. With respect to decisions refusing admission to an open competition, a selection board is required to indicate precisely which conditions in the Notice of Competition are considered not to have been satisfied by a candidate[14].

34. In its letter of 13 February 2007, EPSO informed the complainant that her candidature had been rejected because it did not comply with the conditions of admissibility required by points A.II.1a) and A.II.2 of the Notice of Competition. In its subsequent letter of 23 March 2007, EPSO provided a more detailed answer to the complainant. It emphasised that skills in both simultaneous and consecutive interpretation were necessary to carry out the work of a 'conference interpreter'. EPSO further explained that in the complainant's case, the Selection Board considered that her application did not contain sufficient supporting documents to prove her ability to carry out both of these skills.

35. In light of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the information provided by EPSO to the complainant concerning her non-admission to Open Competition EPSO/AD/73/06 was adequate. He, therefore, concludes that there has been no maladministration corresponding to this allegation.

C. The complainant's claim that she should be admitted to the open competition

36. In light of the findings in Parts A and B above, the complainant's claim cannot stand.

D. Conclusion

On the basis of his inquiries into this complaint, the Ombudsman closes it with the following conclusion:

There has been no maladministration corresponding to the complainant's allegations. Her claim therefore cannot stand.

The Ombudsman will inform the complainant and EPSO of this decision.

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

Done in Strasbourg on 10 June 2009

---

[1] OJ 2006 C 233A, p. 3.

[2] 'Laurea di dottore in lingue e letterature straniere'.

[3] 'Diploma di interprete - traduttore corrispondente lingue estere'.

[4] 'Diploma di traduttore e interprete - indirizzo interprete'.

[5] Case T-133/89, Jean Louis Burban v European Parliament [1990] ECR II-245, paragraph 35.

[6] Case T-386/00 Gonçalves v Parliament [2002] ECR-SC I-A-13 and II-55, paragraph 73.

[7] Case T-132/89 Gallone v Council [1990] ECR II-549, paragraph 27.

[8] Case 225/87 Patricia Belardinelli and others v Court of Justice of the European Communities [1989] ECR 2353, paragraph 24 and Case T-133/89 Jean-Luois Burban v European Parliament [1990] ECR II-245, paragraph 34.

[9] Case T-145/02 Petrich v Commission [2004] ECR-SC I-A-101 and II-447, paragraphs 45 and 49.

[10] Case T-133/89 Jean Louis Burban v European Parliament [1990] ECR II-245, paragraph 35.

[11] Case T-249/01 Boixader Rivas v Parliament [2003] ECR-SC I-A-153 and II-749, paragraph 29 and Case T-214/99 Carrasco Benítez v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-257 and II-1169, paragraphs 69 and 70.

[12] Case T-25/07 Iride SpA and Iride Energia SpA v Commission, judgment of 11 February 2009, not yet published in the ECR, paragraph 66.

[13] Case 69/83 Lukx v Court of Auditors [1984] ECR 2447, paragraph 36.

[14] Case T-214/99, cited above, paragraph 173.