Dear Mr M.,
On 7 November 1997, you lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman, alleging maladministration in a Commission recruitment procedure.
On 16 December 1997, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 16 April 1998 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. On 5 May 1998, I received your observations.
By letter of 9 September 1998, I asked the European Commission to reply to questions raised by your complaint. I also requested access to the file of the recruitment procedure in which you participated. The Commission sent its second opinion on 11 November 1998 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make further observations, if you so wished. On 17 January 1999, I received your observations.
I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

The background to the complaint is in brief the following: On 7 April 1997, the complainant was invited for a job interview at one of the Commission's decentralised agencies (herafter Y). The job concerned was a post as scientific officer. The complainant was interviewed by a selection committee, which placed him as priority number one on the reserve list.
On 14 April 1997, the Personnel Division of Y sent a letter to the complainant, informing him in unequivocal terms that he had been selected for the post. The letter further asked the complainant to make contact with Y with a view to fixing a time for the obligatory medical examination prior to employment.
The complainant accepted the job offer by fax of 18 April 1997. Subsequently, the complainant was in telephone contact with Y on 7 May 1997. Following that conversation, the complainant forwarded by letter of 10 May 1997 the requested certificate of birth. In his letter, the complainant stated that he was looking forward to hearing from Y concerning possible dates for the medical examination.
On 14 May 1997, the complainant received a fax which informed him that, "the authority from whom depends the last decision, has not yet confirmed the selection for the ... position." On 25 June 1997, the complainant sent by registered mail a written request for clarification; the letter also confirmed the complainant's acceptance of the offer of employment. As he had received no reply, the complainant sent another letter on 16 July 1997, requesting a response to the letter of 25 June. By letter of 28 August, the Commission informed the complainant that it was not in possession of his letter of 25 June, and that, accordingly, it was unable to respond to the issues raised therein. On 3 September 1997, the complainant sent another letter by registered mail. The complainant did not receive a reply to that letter.
Against this background, the complainant lodged the complaint with the European Ombudsman on 7 November 1997, alleging that the procedures outlined herein constituted maladministration and that he should be given the post.
On 16 December 1997, the Ombudsman informed the Commission of the complaint; on 27 January 1998, the complainant received a formal letter from the Commission, informing him that his application for the post had not been accepted.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion
The Commission firstly observed that according to the case law of the Court of Justice, inclusion on the list of suitable candidates does not on its own confer a right to be recruited; it only confers eligibility.
Then turning to the facts of the present case, the Commission stated that the selection committee was a purely advisory body, the opinion of which was thereafter sent to the final appointing authority. Only the latter is authorised to make formal appointments. In this case, it was decided that the complainant was less qualified than another person on the reserve list.
The Commission concluded that the relevant authority had taken a decision in the best interest of the service, i.e. to appoint the most suitable candidate.
The complainant's observations
In his observations, the complainant maintained the complaint.

FURTHER INQUIRIES

The Commission did not comment on the fact that the complainant was explicitly informed that he had been chosen for the job, nor did it attempt to explain why the requests for clarification were not responded to. The Ombudsman therefore decided to request a response to these issues. The Ombudsman also decided to request access to the file on the recruitment procedure.
The Commission's second opinion
In its second opinion, the Commission again refrained from commenting specifically on the fact that the complainant had received a letter which informed him that he had been chosen for the post.
As for the alleged lack of replies, the Commission stated that it did reply to the complainant's letters, referring to its own letters of 28 August 1997 and 27 January 1998.
From the file submitted to the Ombudsman, it appeared that the same day the job offer was made, the appointing authority established a note with a reasoned opinion why the authority would not appoint the complainant but another applicant.
The complainant's further observations
The complainant in substance maintained his allegations, and expressed his dissatisfaction with the Commission's refusal to comment on the fact that he had received unequivocal information about his selection.

THE DECISION

1 The post in question
1.1 Further to an interview, the complainant was offered the post for which he had been interviewed. He accepted the offer in good faith, but eventually the Commission withdrew the offer. The complainant considered that he should have the post offered.
1.2 Principles of good administration require that the administration honours the commitments it has undertaken vis-a-vis a citizen. This is not only in the interest of the citizen concerned, but also in the general interest of the administration and the public. The Commission's view that it is free to neglect a job offer it has made is inadmissible in a society governed by the rule of law. Once a job offer has been made by the relevant department, in this case the staff department, citizens must be able to rely on that offer. In this case, it is established that the complainant was offered a job, which he accepted in good faith. Consequently, the Commission should have given him the job that it had offered to him.
1.3 However, subsequently, the competent authority considered that in the interest of the service, another person should be appointed and withdrew the offer. In such a situation, it must remain doubtful whether the complainant could force the Commission to give him the job, as the Court of Justice may annul the decisions of the administration but it cannot give the administration injunctions as to what decision should be taken. The right of the complainant would thus consist in compensation for the damages suffered. In this case, there is no claim for compensation.
1.4 Against this background, the Ombudsman finds that there are no reasons for inquiring further into this aspect of the complaint. However, as the Commission failed to comply with principles of good administration, the Ombudsman shall below address a critical remark to the Commission.
2 The Commission's behaviour
2.1 After the post had been accepted by the complainant, he addressed the Commission several times with a view to making the necessary arrangements. It was only after several months, that the Commission informed him that it was withdrawing the job offer made to him. The complainant considered that the way in which the Commission had acted towards him constituted maladministration.
2.2 The question to be addressed is whether the Commission dealt with the matter in accordance with principles of good administration, once it realized that it would withdraw from the commitment it had made.
As stated above, principles of good administration require that the administration honour the commitments it has made. In the event that the administration withdraws from its commitment, the same principles require that the administration inform the citizen concerned without undue delay, state the reasons for its change of position and offer its apology.
In this case, the Commission let several months pass without informing the complainant that it was withdrawing the job offer that had been made. When the complainant was finally informed, it was on his initiative, not on the Commission's, and the Commission did not give any reasons for the withdrawal. At no time, has the Commission offered an apology.
Therefore, the Ombudsman shall address the following critical remark to the Commission: In the event that the administration withdraws from a commitment it has made, principles of good administration require that the administration inform the citizen concerned without undue delay, state the reasons for its change of position and offer an apology. In this case, the Commission let several months pass without informing the complainant that it was withdrawing the job offer made to him. When the complainant was finally informed, it was on his own initiative, not on the Commission's, and the Commission did not give any reasons for its withdrawal. At no time, did the Commission offer an apology to the complainant. This behaviour is fully unacceptable and not at all in accordance with principles of good administration.
3 Conclusion
On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, it appears necessary to make the following critical remarks:

Principles of good administration require that the administration honour the commitments it has undertaken vis-a-vis a citizen. This is not only in the interest of the citizen concerned, but also in the general interest of the administration and the public. The Commission's view that it is free to neglect a job offer it has made is inadmissible in a society governed by the rule of law. Once a job offer has been made by the relevant department, in this case the staff department, citizens must be able to rely on that offer. In this case, it is established that the complainant was offered a job, which he accepted in good faith. Consequently, the Commission should have given him the job that it had offered to him.

In the event that the administration withdraws from a commitment it has made, principles of good administration require that the administration inform the citizen concerned without undue delay, state the reasons for its change of position and give an apology. In this case, the Commission let several months pass without informing the complainant that it was withdrawing the job offer made to him. When the complainant was finally informed, it was on his initiative, not on the Commission's, and the Commission did not give any reasons for its withdrawal. At no time, did the Commission offer an apology to the complainant. This behaviour is fully unacceptable and not at all in accordance with principles of good administration.

Given that these aspects of the case concern procedures relating to specific events in the past, it is not appropriate to pursue a friendly settlement of the matter. The Ombudsman has therefore decided to close the case.
The President of the European Commission will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely
Jacob SÖDERMAN