Strasbourg, 7 November 2006

Dear Mr X,

On 16 March 2005, you sent the European Ombudsman a complaint against the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities ("OPOCE") concerning your application for Open Competition EPSO/B/14/03.

On 14 April 2005, I forwarded the complaint to the Director-General of OPOCE. The European Personnel Selection Office ("EPSO") sent its opinion, on behalf of OPOCE, on 18 July 2005. On 19 July 2005, I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations before 31 August 2005. No observations were received from you by that date.

Given that, in its opinion of 18 July 2005, EPSO pointed out that Open Competition EPSO/B/14/03 fell within its competence, in accordance with its mandate, I considered it appropriate to regard EPSO as the complainee henceforth.

On 22 May 2006, my services contacted you by telephone in order to ask you whether you agreed with my proposal to consider EPSO as the complainee. In a telephone conversation of 23 May 2006, you informed my services that you agreed with this proposal.

By letter of 29 May 2006, I also requested the agreement of OPOCE as regards my proposal. On 6 June 2006, OPOCE replied that it agreed thereto.

On 29 May 2006, I asked EPSO for further information in relation to your complaint. EPSO sent its reply on 5 July 2006. I forwarded EPSO's reply to you, with an invitation to make observations before 31 August 2006. No observations were received from you by that date.

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 are, in summary, as follows:

The complainant, a Portuguese national, is a qualified translator and worked for eight years as a translator and reviser for several European institutions and bodies. He also worked for one and a half years in the production coordination for the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities ("OPOCE").

In 2003, Open Competition EPSO/B/14/03 was organised in order to recruit administrative assistants of Portuguese language in the fields of publications, more precisely, production coordinators (field 1) and proofreaders (field 2). Several competitions were organised for other languages simultaneously. The complainant applied for field 2 "proofreaders" in Open Competition EPSO/B/14/03.

The complainant passed the pre-selection tests in autumn 2004. On 21 January 2005, he was informed that his application had been rejected on the grounds of points A.II.2 and C.2 of the Notice of Competition, pursuant to which candidates were required to have, at the date of the submission of the application, at least three years of professional experience, in the field chosen and at a level corresponding to the nature of the duties described in point A.I of the Notice of Competition.

In a letter dated 25 January 2005, the complainant asked the Selection Board to reconsider its decision not to admit him to participate further in the competition. He argued that the supporting documents he had sent proved that he had professional experience of more than three years. The complainant also pointed out that the names of some translators, former colleagues of his, had been put on the reserve list of a competition simultaneously organised for the recruitment of proofreaders working in another language, despite the fact they had only experience in translation.

On 15 February 2005, the complainant was informed that the Selection Board had upheld its decision not to admit him to the competition. He was further informed that, although he had wide experience in the translation and revision field, the documents he had sent did not prove that he had three years of professional experience in the field of proofreading.

In his complaint to the European Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Selection Board had been wrong to refuse his application to participate in Open Competition EPSO/B/14/03.

The complainant submitted the following claims:

1. He should be readmitted to Open Competition EPSO/B/14/03 and be invited for an interview.
2. Candidates' admission should be carried out in a fair and non-arbitrary way by Selection Boards and rules for all competitions organised simultaneously should be identical and be applied uniformly.
3. He should receive an explanation as to why experience in translation acquired by candidates in other competitions organised simultaneously was accepted.
4. He should receive an explanation as to why secretaries who had experience in proofreading were admitted to the competition, in contrast to him.
5. He should receive an explanation as to why experience acquired by candidates in other competitions organised simultaneously in teaching their mother tongue was accepted as proofreading experience.

THE INQUIRY

The Ombudsman's approach

The Ombudsman decided to open an inquiry into the complainant's case. However, the Ombudsman informed the complainant that, as no prior administrative approaches appeared to have been made to OPOCE with regard to claims nos 4 and 5, he had decided to consider these aspects of the complaint as inadmissible on the basis of Article 2(4) of the Ombudsman's Statute and that they would therefore not be covered by his inquiry.

The present complaint was initially directed against OPOCE. On 14 April 2005, the Ombudsman therefore forwarded the complaint to OPOCE and asked it to submit an opinion on it. However, the opinion was submitted by EPSO, on behalf of OPOCE. In its opinion, EPSO pointed out that, even though the tests of Open Competition EPSO/B/14/03 had been organised by OPOCE, this competition fell within its competence. The Ombudsman therefore considered it appropriate to regard EPSO as the complainee. Both the complainant and OPOCE agreed with this approach.

EPSO's opinion

The opinion of the European Personnel Selection Office ("EPSO"), made on behalf of OPOCE, was, in summary, as follows.

EPSO first pointed out that, even if the tests of Open Competition EPSO/B/14/03 had been organised by OPOCE, this competition fell within its competence, in accordance with its mandate.

The complainant applied for field 2 "proofreaders" of Open Competition EPSO/B/14/03. Pursuant to point A.I of the Notice of Competition, the functions of proofreaders were defined as follows: "Working under supervision, proofreaders will be expected to proofread Portuguese-language manuscripts. This involves preparing manuscripts in terms of style and typography, proofreading printer's proofs, delivering the 'passed for press' order, participating in the design of publications, participating in the organisation of and follow-up to the production and process in the field of publications."

Pursuant to Article 30 of the Staff Regulations, "for each competition, a selection board shall be appointed by the appointing authority. This board shall draw up a list of suitable candidates". Pursuant to Article 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, "(…) the Selection Board shall draw up a list of candidates who meet the requirements set out in the notice of competition."

The Selection Board has wide powers of discretion, provided that it complies with the requirements laid down in the Notice of Competition, and ensures that there is no discrimination between the candidates participating in the same competition.

Notice of Competition EPSO/B/14/03 provided for four stages before the establishment of the reserve list: (i) three multiple-choice pre-selection tests; (ii) scrutiny by the Selection Board of the case files of those candidates who obtained one of the 55 highest scores in the pre-selection tests for field 2 and who met all the conditions for admission as laid down in the Notice of Competition; (iii) a written test for the candidates who met the abovementioned conditions of admission; (iv) an oral test to which all candidates receiving at least 30 points in the written test and having one of the 24 best scores in that written test would be invited.

In the present case, the complainant obtained the necessary points in the pre-selection tests but he was excluded from the competition at the end of the second stage, because his professional experience did not fulfil the conditions laid down in points A.II.2 and C.2 of the Notice of Competition and, specifically, because he did not satisfy the condition whereby "after obtaining the upper secondary education diploma giving access to the competition, candidates must have gained professional experience of at least three years in the chosen field corresponding to the duties described in Section A.1 of the competition notice in question." The complainant was explicitly given these reasons in a letter dated 21 January 2005.

In response to the complainant's request of 25 January 2005, the Selection Board re-examined his file and concluded that the documentation submitted indicated wide translation experience, including revision of translations, but that it did not provide proof of three years of professional experience of proofreading, as required by point A.II of the Notice of Competition. The Board accordingly upheld its initial decision. This decision was sent to the complainant in a letter dated 15 February 2005.

In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant argued that he had eight years of translation and revision experience, but acknowledged that he had worked at the Publications Office as a proofreader for only a year and a half. In EPSO’s view, the complainant limited himself to saying that there was equivalence between the job of translator or reviser and that of proofreader. Translators in all the institutions are classified in a professional and statutory category (currently as category A* and before 1 May 2004 as category LA) different from that of proofreaders, who are classified as category B*. These are, therefore, quite different professions, and professional experience as a translator cannot be taken as being identical to that of a proofreader.

The Selection Board, which included proofreaders, confirmed that proofreading is a well-defined profession that differs from other ones, including the profession of translator to which the complainant referred in his complaint. The Board had complied with the terms of the Notice of Competition and checked that all the candidates for that competition whose written tests were corrected had at least three years of professional proofreading experience.

As regards the complainant's first claim that he should be readmitted to Open Competition EPSO/B/14/03 and be invited for an interview, since the complainant was excluded at the end of the second stage of the competition, he could not be admitted to the third stage of the competition (that is, the written test) or to the oral test.

As regards the complainant's second claim that candidates' admission should be carried out in a fair and non-arbitrary way by Selection Boards and that the rules for all competitions organised simultaneously should be identical and be applied uniformly, EPSO observed that 20 competitions for proofreaders and production coordinators had been held to cover staffing needs for the production of publications in the Union's 20 official languages as of 1 May 2004. These competitions were grouped in four series of five competitions. As regards professional experience, the Board confirmed that all candidates whose written papers had been corrected had submitted documentary proof that they had obtained, after the award of their upper secondary school qualification, at least three years of professional proofreading experience.

As regards the complainant's third claim that he should receive an explanation as to why experience in translation acquired by candidates in other competitions organised simultaneously had been accepted, it should be noted that Article 30 of the Staff Regulations clearly and formally establishes the principle of independence of each Selection Board. However, the appointing authority appointed only one chairman for each series of competitions. This allowed the Boards for each competition to apply the terms of the Notice of Competition in a uniform manner to all candidates, while taking account of the specific features of each applicant's file.

As held by established case-law of the Community courts, it is for the Selection Board - and it alone - to assess on a case-by-case basis whether the professional experience claimed by each candidate or the diplomas submitted by each of them correspond to the level required and are sufficient to carry out the duties referred to in the Notice of Competition. The Board complied with all the provisions of the Notice of Competition and acted completely within its competence, independently and without discrimination between the candidates for Open Competition EPSO/B/14/03.

The complainant's observations

No observations were received from the complainant by the date set for this purpose.

Further inquiries
The request for information addressed to EPSO

After careful consideration of EPSO's opinion, it appeared that further inquiries were necessary. The Ombudsman therefore asked EPSO to reply to the following questions:

1. In its opinion, EPSO stated that all the applicants who applied for one of the five competitions in the series that included the complainant's competition and who were admitted to the further stages of the competitions had provided evidence of three years' professional experience as proofreader. Could EPSO please inform the Ombudsman whether this was also the case as regards the 15 other competitions?
2. In its opinion, EPSO further stated that the same chairman was appointed for all the Selection Boards of one entire series (of five competitions) and that this "allowed the selection boards for each competition to apply the terms of the competition notice in a uniform manner to all candidates (…)". This would appear to suggest that measures were taken to ensure a uniform interpretation of the terms of the notices of competitions. Could EPSO please explain what specific measures it had taken to ensure the uniformity of the approaches taken by all the different Selection Boards?
3. In its opinion, EPSO stressed "that proofreading is a well-defined profession which differs from other ones, including the profession of translator". Could EPSO therefore please specify (i) whether professional experience as a translator was considered as being relevant professional experience by any of the 20 Selection Boards and (ii) if so, why EPSO considers this to be correct?

The EPSO's reply

In its reply, EPSO made in summary the following statements:

As a preliminary remark, EPSO confirmed that Open Competition EPSO/B/14/03 fell within EPSO's area of responsibility and that it is therefore for EPSO to reply to the Ombudsman's inquiries relating to all matters falling within its area of responsibility, in accordance with the decision of the Secretaries-General of 25 July 2002 on the organisation and operation of EPSO.

EPSO then replied to the three questions as follows:

1. All the competition notices stipulated that candidates had to show that they had three years' professional experience in the field covered by the competition (proofreading). Had any Selection Board stated in its report that a candidate failed to satisfy this condition, the application in question could not have been deemed admissible without contravening the terms of the competition notice. Accordingly, after examining their files, the Selection Boards (for the 20 competitions) considered that all the candidates(1) admitted satisfied all the requirements of the competition notices, including that relating to professional experience.
2. When the Selection Boards for these competitions were set up, preparatory meetings were organised with representatives of the administration in order to enable the members of the Selection Boards to obtain the same information and put any questions they deemed necessary. Furthermore, in strict compliance with the terms of Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, other meetings were held whenever the Selection Boards required additional information or clarifications concerning the interpretation of the competition notices or explanations about procedure.
3. For the purpose of the competition for which they were appointed, the Selection Boards for all these competitions were obliged, on the basis of each candidate's file, to assess the relevance of candidates' professional experience in relation to the requirements laid down in the notices of competition. In all cases, the Selection Boards' reports confirmed that, based on an examination of their files, all candidates admitted to the subsequent stage were found to have demonstrated compliance with all the conditions governing admission to these competitions. The Selection Boards' reports made no reference to any other specifications, for example, as regards professional experience, of the type inquired about by the Ombudsman.

The complainant's further observations

No observations were received from the complainant by the date set for this purpose.

THE DECISION

1 The scope of the Ombudsman's inquiry

1.1 The complainant is a Portuguese qualified translator and worked for eight years as a translator and reviser for several European institutions and bodies. He also worked for one and a half years in the production coordination for the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities ("OPOCE"). In 2004, he participated in Open Competition EPSO/B/14/03, field 2 (proofreaders), and passed the pre-selection tests. On 21 January 2005, he was informed that his application had been rejected on the basis of points A.II.2 and C.2 of the Notice of Competition, pursuant to which candidates were required to have, at the date of the submission of the applications, at least three years of professional experience, in the field chosen, and at a level corresponding to the nature of the duties described in point A.I of the Notice of Competition. In a letter dated 25 January 2005, the complainant asked the President of the Selection Board to reconsider the decision not to admit him to participate further in the competition. On 15 February 2005, the complainant was informed that the Board had upheld its decision not to admit him to the competition. In his complaint to the European Ombudsman, the complainant submitted the following five claims:

1. He should be readmitted to Open Competition EPSO/B/14/03 and be invited for an interview.
2. Candidates' admission should be carried out in a fair and non-arbitrary way by Selection Boards and rules for all competitions organised simultaneously should be identical and be applied uniformly.
3. He should receive an explanation as to why experience in translation acquired by candidates in other competitions organised simultaneously was accepted.
4. He should receive an explanation as to why secretaries who had experience in proofreading were admitted to the competition, in contrast to him.
5. He should receive an explanation as to why experience acquired by candidates of other competitions organised simultaneously in teaching their mother tongue of was accepted as proofreading experience.

1.2 In his reply dated 14 April 2005, the Ombudsman informed the complainant that, since no prior administrative approaches appeared to have been made with regard to claims nos 4 and 5, he had decided to consider these aspects of the complaint as inadmissible and to close them on the basis of Article 2(4) of his Statute.

1.3 The present decision therefore only deals with the complainant's allegation and claims nos 1 to 3.

1.4 The Ombudsman would like to point out that the complaint was initially directed against OPOCE. However, given that the opinion was submitted by the European Personnel Selection Office ("EPSO"), on behalf of OPOCE, and that EPSO stated that the competition which was the object of the present complaint fell within its competence, the Ombudsman considered it appropriate to regard EPSO as the complainee.

2 The allegedly wrong exclusion of the complainant from Open Competition EPSO/B/14/03 by the Selection Board

2.1 In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the Selection Board had been wrong to refuse his application to Open Competition EPSO/B/14/03.

2.2 In its opinion, EPSO stated that the complainant was excluded from the competition at the end of the second stage because he did not satisfy the condition set out at point A.II.2 of the Notice of Competition whereby "after obtaining the upper secondary education diploma giving access to the competition, candidates must have gained professional experience of at least three years in the chosen field corresponding to the duties described in Section A.I of the notice of competition in question". In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant argued that he had eight years of translation and revision experience, but acknowledged that he had worked at the Publications Office as a proofreader for only a year and a half. In EPSO's view, the complainant limited himself to saying that there was equivalence between the job of translator or reviser and that of proofreader. However, these are quite different professions, and professional experience as a translator cannot be taken as being identical to that of a proofreader. The Selection Board, which included proofreaders, confirmed that proofreading is a well-defined profession that differs from other ones, including the profession of translator to which the complainant referred in his complaint. EPSO further submitted that the Board complied with the terms of the Notice of Competition and checked that all the candidates for that competition whose written tests were corrected had at least three years of professional proofreading experience.

2.3 The complainant made no observations on EPSO's opinion.

2.4 The Ombudsman recalls that, according to the established case-law of the Community courts, Selection Boards have wide discretionary powers in assessing the professional experience of the applicants under a competition and that this assessment can only be set aside in case of manifest violation of a rule or principle binding upon the Selection Board.

2.5 In the present case, the Ombudsman notes that point A.II.2 of the Notice of Competition EPSO/B/14/03 stated that candidates were required to have, at the date of the submission of the applications, at least three years of professional experience, in the field chosen and at a level corresponding to the nature of the duties described in point A.I of the Notice of Competition. Pursuant to point A.I of the Notice of Competition, the functions of proofreaders were defined as follows: "working under supervision, proofreaders will be expected to proofread Portuguese-language manuscripts. This involves preparing manuscripts in terms of style and typography, proofreading printer's proofs, delivering the 'passed for press' order, participating in the design of publications, participating in the organisation of and follow-up to the production and process in the field of publications"(2). The Ombudsman further notes that, pursuant to point C.2 of the Notice of Competition, candidates were required to provide the relevant supporting documents relating to their qualifications and their professional experience. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant stated the following with regard to her professional experience: "I am a qualified graduate translator and have worked for 8 years in translation and revision for several institutions and bodies of the EU. I also worked for one and a half years in production coordination at the Office for Official Publications of the EU in Luxembourg". In the complainant’s view, his professional experience in the field of translation should therefore have been considered as relevant by the Selection Board.

2.6 In view of the information at his disposal, the Ombudsman considers that the complainant has not provided proof, either to the Selection Board or in the framework of the present inquiry, that he had three years of professional experience in the field of proofreading, as required by point A.II of the Notice of Competition. As regards the complainant’s professional experience in the translation field, the Ombudsman notes that, in its opinion, EPSO stated that the profession of proofreader differed from the one of translator. The Ombudsman observes that this statement by EPSO does not appear unreasonable and that the complainant did not submit any observations on EPSO’s opinion. In view of the discretionary powers of the Selection Board in assessing the professional experience of the applicants under a competition , the Ombudsman considers that the complainant has not established that the Selection Board committed a manifest error when assessing his professional experience.

2.7 In view of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the reasons given by the Selection Board for not allowing the complainant further to participate in Open Competition EPSO/B/14/03 appear to be reasonable. In these circumstances, and subject to the Ombudsman’s conclusion as regards the complainant’s third claim (see point 3.8 below), there appears to have been no maladministration on the part of EPSO as regards this aspect of the case.

3 The complainant's claims

3.1 The complainant claimed that (i) he should be readmitted to Open Competition EPSO/B/14/03 and be invited for an interview; (ii) candidates' admission should be carried out in a fair and non-arbitrary way by Selection Boards and rules for all competitions organised simultaneously should be identical and be applied uniformly; (iii) he should receive an explanation as to why experience in translation acquired by candidates in other competitions organised simultaneously was accepted.

3.2 As regards the complainant's claim that he should be readmitted to Open Competition EPSO/B/14/03 and be invited for an interview, EPSO stated that, since the complainant was excluded at the second stage of the competition, he could not be admitted to the third stage of the competition or to the oral test.

As regards the complainant's claim that candidates' admission should be carried out in a fair and non-arbitrary way by Selection Boards and rules for all competitions organised simultaneously should be identical and be applied uniformly, EPSO stated that 20 competitions for proofreaders and production coordinators had been held to cover staffing needs for the production of publications in the Union's 20 official languages as of 1 May 2004, grouped in four series of five competitions. As regards professional experience, the Board in charge of the complainant's competition had confirmed that all candidates whose written papers had been corrected had attached documentary proof to their applications that they had obtained, after the award of their upper secondary school qualification, at least three years of professional proofreading experience.

As regards the complainant's claim that he should receive an explanation as to why experience in translation acquired by candidates in other competitions organised simultaneously was accepted, EPSO stated that Article 30 of the Staff Regulations clearly and formally establishes the principle of independence of each Selection Board. According to the established case-law of the Community courts, it is for the Board - and it alone - to assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether the professional experience of a candidate or the diploma submitted by him or her correspond to the level required and are accordingly sufficient to carry out the duties referred to in the Notice of Competition.

3.3 After having considered EPSO’s opinion, the Ombudsman asked EPSO to reply to the three following questions:

1. In its opinion, EPSO stated that all the applicants who applied for one of the five competitions in the series that included the complainant's competition and who were admitted to the further stages of the competitions had provided evidence of three years' professional experience as proofreader. Could EPSO please inform the Ombudsman whether this was also the case as regards the 15 other competitions?
2. In its opinion, EPSO further stated that the same chairman was appointed for all the Selection Boards of one entire series (of five competitions) and that this "allowed the selection boards for each competition to apply the terms of the competition notice in a uniform manner to all candidates (…)". This would appear to suggest that measures were taken to ensure a uniform interpretation of the terms of the notices of competitions. Could EPSO please explain what specific measures it had taken to ensure the uniformity of the approaches taken by all the different Selection Boards?
3. In its opinion, EPSO stressed "that proofreading is a well-defined profession which differs from other ones, including the profession of translator". Could EPSO therefore please specify (i) whether professional experience as a translator was considered as being relevant professional experience by any of the 20 Selection Boards and (ii) if so, why EPSO considers this to be correct?

3.4 In its reply, EPSO stated that, as regards question (1), all the competition notices stipulated that candidates had to show that they had three years' professional experience in the field covered by the competition (proofreading). Had any Selection Board stated in its report that a candidate failed to satisfy this condition, the application in question could not have been deemed admissible without contravening the terms of the competition notice. Accordingly, after examining their files, the Selection Boards (for the 20 competitions) considered that all the candidates admitted satisfied all the requirements of the competition notices, including that relating to professional experience.

As regards question (2), EPSO stated that, when the Selection Boards for these competitions were set up, preparatory meetings were organised with representatives of the administration in order to enable the members of the Selection Boards to obtain the same information and put any questions they deemed necessary. Furthermore, in strict compliance with the terms of Article 6 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, other meetings were held whenever the Selection Boards required additional information or clarifications concerning the interpretation of the competition notices or explanations about procedure.

As regards question (3), EPSO stated that, for the purpose of the competition for which they were appointed, the Selection Boards for all these competitions were obliged, on the basis of each candidate's file, to assess the relevance of candidates' professional experience in relation to the requirements laid down in the notices of competition. In all cases, the Selection Boards' reports confirmed that, based on an examination of their files, all candidates admitted to the subsequent stage were found to have demonstrated compliance with all the conditions governing admission to these competitions. The Selection Boards' reports made no reference to any other specifications, for example, as regards professional experience, of the type inquired about by the Ombudsman.

3.5 The complainant did not send any further observations on EPSO’s reply.

3.6 As regards the complainant's claim that he should be readmitted to Open Competition EPSO/B/14/03 and be invited for an interview, the Ombudsman considers that, in light of his conclusion in point 2.7 above, there appears to have been no maladministration by EPSO.

3.7 As regards the complainant's claim that candidates' admission should be carried out in a fair and non-arbitrary way by Selection Boards and that rules for all competitions organised simultaneously should be identical and be applied uniformly, the Ombudsman notes that it emerges from EPSO’s reply that the Selection Boards for the 20 competitions had considered that all the applicants had provided evidence of three years of relevant professional experience and that specific measures had been taken to ensure the uniformity of the approaches taken by all the Selection Boards, namely, the setting up of preparatory meetings with representatives of the administration in order to provide information to the members of the Selection Boards and to enable them to ask any relevant questions. On the basis of these considerations, the Ombudsman considers that there appears to have been no maladministration on behalf of EPSO as regards this claim.

3.8 As regards the complainant's claim that she should receive an explanation as to why experience in translation was accepted as regards candidates taking part in other competitions that were organised simultaneously, the Ombudsman regrets that EPSO did not address this issue in its reply on the Ombudsman's request for further information, although the Ombudsman had explicitly asked it to do so. However, regard should also be had to the fact that the complainant has not provided any concrete indications that professional experience in the translation field had indeed been recognised as relevant professional experience by any of the Selection Boards, for instance, by giving names or by indicating in which of the 20 competitions this would have been the case. The Ombudsman further observes that the complainant has not submitted any observations on either EPSO’s opinion or its reply to the request for further information. In view of these circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that there are no grounds to pursue his inquiry into this aspect of the case. The complainant remains of course free to submit a new complaint concerning this issue, provided that he submits more detailed information so as to enable the Ombudsman to focus his inquiry.

4 Conclusion

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

The Director of EPSO will be informed of this decision. The Director-General of OPOCE will also receive a copy of this decision, for information.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) Underlined by EPSO in its opinion.

(2) Original version in Portuguese, see OJ 2003/C 241A/02.