Strasbourg, 14 October 2004

Dear Mr X.,

On 8 June 2004, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Parliament concerning competition PE/98/A.

On 16 June 2004, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Parliament. Parliament sent its opinion on 13 September 2004. I forwarded it to you on 22 September 2004 with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 28 September 2004.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant successfully passed competition CC/A/12/02 (Information technology – grade A7/A6). After the publication of the relevant reserve list in August 2002 he approached several institutions, including the European Parliament, without however finding a suitable post.

In February 2004, the European Parliament published Notice of competition PE/98/A (Engineers with telecommunications expertise – grade A5/A4). According to this notice of competition, the Selection Board was to assess applications in order to find the 15 best candidates who were to be invited to the oral examinations.

The complainant applied to take part in competition PE/98/A. He was subsequently informed by Parliament that he was not among these 15 candidates. On 6 April 2004, he asked the EP to re-examine his application. On 25 May 2004, the complainant received a detailed letter setting out the reasons for the relevant decision.

In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant noted that he had only received 9.88 points out of a maximum of 20 points, putting him in 24th position among 38 candidates. The complainant submitted that the rating of his university studies (4.4 points out of 6) had been incorrect, given that he had a degree in mathematics and that he had passed a post-university course in computer engineering. He also pointed out that he had received 0.2 points (out of 0.4) on the 'electronic mail' section, although this activity had always been part of his responsibilities. According to the complainant, the 'network security' section had also been unfairly rated at 0.2. (out of 0.4) points. The complainant further submitted that the section 'integration of services on a workstation' where he had received only 0.2 (out of 0.4) points was a domain where he had collected a great deal of experience.

On the basis of the above, the complainant concluded that he should have been given at least 12.08 points.

The complainant also wondered why his professional experience had only been rated at 1.08 (out of 6) points.

The complainant thus basically alleged that the European Parliament had failed properly to assess his application to take part in competition PE/98/A. He claimed that he should be admitted to the oral examination of the competition.

THE INQUIRY

The European Parliament's opinion

In its opinion, the European Parliament made the following comments:

The Selection Board had assessed the complainant's application and awarded him 9.88 out of 20 points, which placed him in 24th position among the 38 candidates admitted to the competition. The complainant had been informed of this result and of the fact that he was not among the 15 best candidates by letter dated 29 March 2004.

By letter dated 6 April 2004, the complainant had challenged this assessment, drawing attention to his training and experience, and had asked for his application to be reconsidered. However, because of technical problems the Competitions Unit had not received this letter until 24 May 2004. The letter was then forwarded immediately to the Selection Board.

At its meeting of 24 May 2004, the Selection Board had reviewed the complainant's application and confirmed its decision not to admit him to the oral tests. The complainant had been informed of this decision and of the underlying reasons by letter of 25 May 2004.

The assessment of qualifications and experience was, by its very nature, a comparative exercise in which the merits of candidates were compared. In order to ensure that all candidates were treated equally, the Selection board had based its assessment on a marking grid that had been drawn up in advance on the basis of the text of the notice of competition.

In accordance with established case-law in this matter, the Selection Board had a wide power of discretion in assessing the merits of candidates and the Administration was unable to overturn the Selection Board's decision not to invite the complainant to the oral tests.

The complainant's observations

In his observations, the complainant stressed that he had sent spontaneous applications to Parliament five months before the announcement of the competition and that he therefore considered the justification of the competition in question (to establish a list of suitable candidates in order to fill posts that could not be filled by internal transfer, by internal competition or by transfer of staff from other EU institutions) to be weak. The complainant stated that he would like an independent expert to examine his application and to address the issues that he had raised in his complaint.

THE DECISION

1 Introductory remark

1.1 In his complaint lodged in June 2004, the complainant objected to the result of the assessment of his application for competition PE/98/A that had been organised by the European Parliament with a view to recruiting Engineers with telecommunications expertise (grade A5/A4).

1.2 In his observations on Parliament's opinion, the complainant called into doubt the justification for organising this competition. The complainant pointed out that he had passed another competition (competition CC/A/12/02 - information technology – grade A7/A6), that he had been put on the reserve list for this competition and that he had sent spontaneous applications to Parliament five months before the announcement of competition PE/98/A.

1.3 The European Ombudsman considers that the complainant has not made a clear allegation as regards the justification for organising competition PE/98/A and that it is therefore not appropriate to deal with this issue in the present inquiry. The complainant is free to submit a further complaint regarding this issue to the Ombudsman, after having made the appropriate prior approaches to Parliament.

2 Allegedly incorrect assessment of application

2.1 The complainant noted that he had only received 9.88 points out of a maximum of 20 points as regards his application. He submitted that the rating of his university studies (4.4 points out of 6), of the 'electronic mail's section (0.2 points out of 0.4), of the 'network security' section (0.2. points out of 0.4) and of the section 'integration of services on a workstation' (0.2 points out of 0.4) had been incorrect and that he should have been given at least 12.08 points.

2.2 In its opinion, Parliament took the view that the Selection Board had a wide power of discretion in assessing the merits of candidates and the Administration was unable to overturn the Selection Board's decision not to invite the complainant to the oral tests.

2.3 The Ombudsman notes that according to the established case-law of the Community courts the Selection Board has a wide power of discretion in assessing the merits of candidates and that the courts can only intervene in case there has been a manifest error as regards this assessment(1). The Ombudsman considers it appropriate in a case such as the present to apply the same standard of review as the court as regards the substance of the decision reached by the selection board. In the Ombudsman's view, the complainant has not shown that a manifest error had occurred in the present case regarding the assessment of his application. In these circumstances, there are no grounds to consider the complainant's request that an independent expert should examine his application.

3 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,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) See, for example, Case T-139/00 Bal v. Commission [2002] ECR SC II-139, paragraph 55.