Dear Ms K.,

On 22 February 2000, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the European Parliament's decision not to allow your participation in the selection procedure EUR/A/146/98.

On 30 March 2000, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Parliament. The Parliament sent its opinion on 7 September 2000 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. No observations appear to have been received from you.

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

THE COMPLAINT

In February 2000, the complainant submitted a complaint concerning the European Parliament's decision not to allow her to participate in a recruitment competition. The background to the complaint was the following:

In April 1999, the complainant submitted an application to participate in the recruitment competition EUR/A/146/98. In November 1999, the Parliament rejected the application on the ground that the complainant did not have an exam from a university or an institution of higher education. The complainant wrote to the Parliament that she considered the Parliament's decision to be factually wrong. She noted that she had two bachelor degrees, each from the Handelshøjskolen (Copenhagen School of Economics and Business Administration). She also noted that the competition notice merely required that applicants should have passed a final exam from a university or an institution of higher education. The complainant also stated that her qualifications had previously enabled her to participate in other A-level recruitment competitions organised by respectively the Council and the Commission.

In January 2000, the Parliament's selection committee informed the complainant that it maintained its rejection of her application on the ground that it had decided to only accept candidates with a degree based on full-time studies of a four year duration. The complainant's degrees did not comply with that requirement.

In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant claimed that she should be allowed to participate in the recruitment competition. She made the following allegations in support of her claim:

1) It was wrong of the selection committee to apply criteria different from those mentioned in the notice of competition

2) It was wrong of the Parliament's selection committee to apply selection criteria different from those applied by the Commission and the Council

3) It is discrimination not to allow Danish applicants to participate on the basis of a bachelor degree, given that other nationals (e.g. UK nationals) are allowed to participate on that basis.

THE INQUIRY

The European Parliament's opinion

The complaint was forwarded to the European Parliament, which, in summary, provided the following response to the allegations.

In regard to the first allegation, the Parliament confirmed that its Selection Committee had established the requirement of full-time studies of a four year duration. This interpretation of the competition notice was adopted to ensure a high level of equality and consistency. Since neither of the complainant's bachelor degrees were based on full-time studies of a four-year duration, they did not comply with the Selection Committee's interpretation. The complainant's bachelor degrees were furthermore not cumulative, but entirely separate.

To further inquire into the nature of the complainant's degrees, the Parliament had contacted the relevant Danish institutions and authorities for information. The results of these inquiries supported the Parliament's conclusions.

In regard to the second allegation, the Parliament first pointed out that according to the case law of the Community courts, the recruitment rules of one institution cannot be relied on to invalidate the decision of a selection committee of another institution. Nevertheless, the Parliament had informally contacted the Commission and the Council to obtain information about the complainant's previous success in gaining access to A-level competitions in those institutions. The Parliament had been informed that the complainant had only participated in one LA-recruitment competition.

In regard to the third allegation, the Parliament stated that it had rejected all the degrees that were similar to the complainant's.

The Parliament finally drew attention to its attempts to make the notices of competition clearer. Thus, the Parliament has published an annex that sets out the accepted degrees, and which specifies that the degree-classification is frequently revised. The Parliament is furthermore in the process of analysing how the wording of the competition notices can be made more precise, and whether it would be possible to explicitly mention the accepted degrees in the notice of competition itself.

The complainant's observations

The complainant does not appear to have sent observations.

THE DECISION

1 Application of different criteria

1.1 The complainant made the allegation that it was wrong of the selection committee to apply criteria different from those mentioned in the notice of competition. The Parliament has replied that it adopted an interpretation of the notice of competition to ensure equality and consistency.

1.2 Qualifications of higher education have not been harmonised in the European Union. European Union institutions and bodies are therefore forced to independently adopt their own approach to higher education requirements. In adopting their approach, the institutions are naturally obliged to act within the limits of their legal powers, and to apply the approach with due diligence.

1.3 In the present case, the Parliament established a more precise requirement as an interpretation of the broad requirement in the notice of competition. Although it is regrettable that the more precise requirement was not explicitly stated in the notice of competition, its content was more in the nature of a necessary interpretation of the notice than a new requirement. Since the precise requirement was adopted within the limits of the Parliament's legal powers, and was, in regard to the facts of the complainant's case, applied diligently, the Ombudsman concludes that there has been no maladministration in regard to the first allegation.

2 Different application of criteria in other institutions

2.1 The complainant alleged that it was wrong of the Parliament's selection committee to apply selection criteria different from those applied by the Commission and the Council. The Parliament has pointed out that Community law does not oblige it to follow the recruitment practices of other institutions.

2.2 The Ombudsman notes that the Parliament did not have a legal obligation to apply the same recruitment practices as the Commission or the Council, and concludes, therefore, that the second allegation was unfounded. There has therefore been no maladministration in regard to this allegation.

3 Discrimination against Danish applicants

3.1 The complainant claimed that it was discrimination not to allow Danish applicants to participate on the basis of a bachelor degree, given that other nationals (e.g. UK nationals) are allowed access on that basis. The Parliament has responded that it had rejected all degrees that were similar to the complainant's.

3.2 The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence that appears to support the complainant's allegation. The Ombudsman therefore concludes that there appears to have been no maladministration in regard to the third allegation.

4 Conclusion

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

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

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob Söderman