Dear Mr Ø.,

On 14 and 22 May 2002, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the suspension of your recruitment by the Economic and Social Committee.

On 12 June 2002, I forwarded the complaint to the Secretary General of the Economic and Social Committee. On 16 September you sent a letter with additional information. The Economic and Social Committee sent its opinion on 2 October 2002. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 30 November 2002.

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 were as follows:

The complainant passed the European Parliament's competition PE/86/A for English language Assistant Administrators. In January 2002, he applied to the Economic and Social Committee (ECOSOC) for a post as an official. In February 2002, ECOSOC made a job offer to him. The complainant passed the medical examination and his first working day was agreed to be 2 May 2002.

However, in March 2002, ECOSOC informed the complainant that they could not recruit him, as he had not succeeded in the European Parliament's competition and had not been placed on the reserve list. From then on, the complainant contacted ECOSOC several times, but they maintained that they could not recruit him. To date, the complainant has not received a formal letter of engagement, nor a formal retraction of the job offer. The complainant, referring to the Parliament's letters, maintains that he has passed the competition and that he should be recruited.

On 14 May 2002, the complainant lodged the present complaint with the Ombudsman stating that there had been serious administrative irregularities in the recruitment procedure, such as abuse of power, breach of contract, breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, breach of the principle of transparency, refusal of information, failure to reply, unnecessary delay, lack of professionalism and courtesy and blatant disregard for the damage caused.

In substance the complainant alleged that the Economic and Social Committee has unjustifiably suspended his recruitment procedure on 18 March 2002 and, by doing so, caused damage to him.

THE INQUIRY

The Economic and Social Committee's opinion

In its opinion, the Economic and Social Committee first recalled the facts which were at the basis of the complaint:

On 29 July 1999, the Head of the competition service of the European Parliament sent a letter to the complainant in which she stated that "I regret to inform you that it was not possible to include your name on the list of suitable candidates because, although you obtained the pass-mark in each of the tests and you obtained the required 60 % of the marks in all the written and oral tests, you are not among the 13 best candidates to whom the list of suitable candidates had to be restricted".

On 15 January 2002, the complainant sent two letters to the Economic and Social Committee in which he presented himself as a successful candidate in Parliament competition PE/86/A. By an internal note of 6 February 2002, the Director of Directorate A, who had received the complainant, invited the Human Resources and Finances Directorate to start the recruitment procedure of the complainant. On 12 February 2002 the complainant was called for the medical examination and for an interview with the Director of the Human Resources and Finance Directorate. Both took place on 25 February 2002.

On 6 March 2002, the Director of the Human Resources and Finance Directorate sent a letter to the Director General for Personnel, Budget and Finance of the European Parliament, informing him that the Economic and Social Committee wished that the complainant was recruited by the Parliament and immediately transferred to the Committee.

On 18 March 2002, the Parliament services telephoned the secretary of the ECOSOC Recruitment unit to inform her that the complainant was not included in the reserve list of competition PE/86/A. The same day the secretary phoned the complainant in order to inform him that, according to the Head of Unit, he could not be recruited as an official. Afterwards followed a long correspondence between the complainant and ECOSOC, including a letter from the Director of the Human Resources and Finance Directorate of 10 April 2002 informing the complainant that the recruitment procedure had been stopped.

As regards the complainant's allegations, ECOSOC first observed that the fact that the complainant was not included in the reserve list of competition PE/86/A excluded his recruitment as an official (Articles 28 d and 30 of the Staff Regulations, Annex III, Article 5). He could therefore not be transferred to ECOSOC.

At no point did ECOSOC make a formal recruitment proposal to the complainant. All steps taken before 15 March 2002 were based on the false declaration of the complainant that he had passed competition PE/86/A and were part of the usual procedure of preparing a recruitment dossier. The complainant was asked to provide a certificate of good moral conduct, but this cannot be considered as a formal engagement. Once ECOSOC was informed by the Parliament that the complainant had not passed the competition, it immediately took contact with the complainant, first by telephone and later by letter, to inform him that the recruitment procedure had been terminated.

On basis of the above, ECOSOC considered that it was not responsible for the damage which find their origin in the complainant's own actions, namely in the wrong information he communicated to the Committee.

The complainant's observations

On 16 September 2002, the complainant informed the Ombudsman that, as from 1 September 2002, he was been recruited as Assistant translator in the English translation service of the European Commission in Luxembourg.

In his letter of 30 November 2002, the complainant maintained his complaint and annexed 12 pages of observations, including new allegations, also against the European Parliament.

As regards the Economic and Social Committee's statement that the complainant had provided false information, the complainant stated that ECOSOC was in fact calling into question his personal integrity by accusing him of deliberately misleading the Committee and lying to it.

As regards the possibility of being recruited, the complainant observed that neither the Staff Regulations nor the competition notice specify inclusion in the reserve list as a condition for being recruited. The Economic and Social Committee has therefore not satisfactorily indicated the legal basis why the complainant could not be recruited as an official on basis of open competition PE/86/A.

The complainant alleged lack of transparency by the European Parliament, because it has not released the reserve list of the thirteen best candidates. The complainant also pointed out that, although the competition in question had been organised for the Parliament's services, 8 of the 13 successful candidates were finally recruited by the Commission.

The complainant further alleged discrimination by the Economic and Social Committee in the application of the provisions of the Staff Regulations and the competition notice.

The complainant maintained that there had been breach of contract, unnecessary delay, damage and withholding of information concerning the legal basis for the position adopted by the Economic and Social Committee in this matter.

The complainant made some more general comments also. He referred to his successful recruitment by the Commission on basis of his success in the Interinstitutional competition EUR/LA/92. The complainant observed that the Commission's recruitment procedure contrasted sharply with the practice of the Economic and Social Committee which appears to take the view that it is the responsibility of the European citizen applying for a job to supply them with information which they deem important for their procedures.

THE DECISION

1 The scope of the Ombudsman's inquiry

In his observations, the complainant made new allegations against the Economic and Social Committee, as well as against the European Parliament. In order not to delay his decision on the present complaint, the Ombudsman has limited his inquiry to the complainant's initial allegation that the Economic and Social Committee unjustifiably suspended his recruitment procedure and caused damage to him. The Ombudsman points out that the complainant has the possibility to consider to make a new complaint if he would wish to pursue these new allegations.

2 The alleged unjustified suspension of the complainant's recruitment procedure

2.1 The complainant alleged that the Economic and Social Committee has unjustifiably suspended his recruitment procedure on 18 March 2002 and, by doing so, caused damage to him.

2.2 The Economic and Social Committee argued that the fact that the complainant was not included in the reserve list of competition PE/86/A excluded his recruitment as an official (Articles 28 d and 30 of the Staff Regulations, Annex III, Article 5), and his transfer to the Economic and Social Committee. The Committee stated that it had at no point made a formal recruitment proposal to the complainant. All steps taken before 15 March 2002 were based on the declaration of the complainant that he had passed competition PE/86/A and were part of the usual procedure of preparing a recruitment dossier. Once the Economic and Social Committee was informed by the Parliament that the complainant had not passed the competition, it immediately took contact with the complainant. First by telephone and later by letter, the Economic and Social informed him that his recruitment was no longer possible.

2.3 The Ombudsman has carefully examined the documents in the file. As regards the question whether the complainant has passed the competition PE/86/A (English language assistant administrators), the letter from the European Parliament's competition service of 29 July 1999 states that "I regret to inform you that it was not possible to include your name on the list of suitable candidates because, although you obtained the pass-mark in each of the tests and you obtained the required 60 % of the marks in all the written and oral tests, you are not among the 13 best candidates to whom the list of suitable candidates had to be restricted". It is clear from this phrase that the complainant had not succeeded in the competition and was not put on the reserve list. As regards the second letter from the competition service dated 4 October 1999, to which the complainant also refers in order to claim that he passed the competition, it appears that it informed the complainant of his detailed marks on each of the tests as well as of the possibilities of the successful candidates to be recruited by other institutions than the Parliament.

2.4 It appears thus that, as the complainant had not passed competition PE/86/A, the Staff Regulations did not allow the Economic and Social Committee to recruit him as an official on the basis of that competition. The Economic and Social Committee was therefore right when it stated that the fact that the complainant was not included in the reserve list of competition PE/86/A made impossible his recruitment as an official (Articles 28 d and 30 of the Staff Regulations, Annex III, Article 5) and his transfer to the Economic and Social Committee.

2.5 On basis of the above, no instance of maladministration was found in the decision of the Economic and Social Committee to stop the recruitment procedure which it has started with the complainant. Therefore there appears to be no ground for the complainant to claim damages.

3 Conclusion

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

The Secretary General of the Economic and Social Committee will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN