Strasbourg, 26 April 2004

Dear Ms B.,

On 18 March 2003, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Personnel Selection Office (hereafter EPSO) concerning competition COM/C/1/02.

On 23 April 2003, I forwarded the complaint to the Director of EPSO. On 8 May 2003, the Director of EPSO informed me that your complaint had been forwarded to the Secretariat General of the European Commission because competition COM/C/1/02 had been organised by the latter. The European Commission sent its opinion on 6 June 2003. On 23 June 2003, the Director of EPSO informed me that it confirmed the Commission's opinion on your complaint.

I forwarded the Commission's opinion to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished by 31 July 2003. 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.

I apologise for the length of time it has taken to deal with your complaint.

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the relevant facts are as follows:

The complainant participated in competition COM/C/1/02 organised by the European Commission to recruit typists of French mother tongue. On 7 February 2003, the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) informed her that her examination paper for test e) had not be corrected because she had not obtained the minimum number of points for test d).

When calculating again the number of points for correct and wrong answers, the complainant did not obtain the same result as EPSO. She therefore telephoned EPSO and requested information on the marking system used for the correction of the tests. EPSO refused to give her the information but informed her that she could ask for a review of her examination paper.

By e-mail dated 7 February 2003, the complainant requested to be sent the corrected version of test d). A copy of her examination paper and the corrected version of test d) were sent to her by EPSO on 24 February 2003.

On 26 February 2003, the complainant wrote to EPSO and requested to be informed about the marking system used for the correction of test d). On 4 March 2003, EPSO replied by confirming its decision of 7 February 2003.

On 18 March 2003, the complainant lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman. She alleged that EPSO had failed to give her information on the marking system used for the correction of test d).

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

On 8 May 2003, the Director of EPSO informed the European Ombudsman that the complaint had been forwarded to the Secretariat General of the European Commission because competition COM/C/1/02 had been organised by the latter. The European Commission sent its opinion on 6 June 2003. On 23 June 2003, the Director of EPSO informed the European Ombudsman that it confirmed the Commission's opinion on the complaint.

The opinion of the European Commission on the complaint was in summary as follows:

Competition COM/C/1/02, published in the OJ of 22 January 2002, was organised to draw up a reserve list of French-speaking typists. The complainant applied to take part in this competition. As she was among the 1000 best candidates after the preselection tests, she was invited to participate in the written tests which took place on 29 November 2002 in Brussels.

In accordance with point VI of the notice of competition, test d) aimed at assessing the candidates' command of the French language and consisted in the correction of fifty lines of a typewritten test containing spelling, grammatical and syntax mistakes. Point VI B of the notice of competition stated that written test d) would be marked on a maximum 20 points and that candidates had to obtain a minimum of 10 points.

All papers were corrected anonymously by at least two examiners on the basis of the criteria established by the Selection Board. The latter then checked the correct application of these criteria and examined the comments made by the examiners. The Selection Board finally determined the results, which were communicated to the candidates.

In a letter dated 7 February 2003, the complainant was informed of the results she had obtained. Given that she had not obtained the minimum of ten points required by the notice of competition for test d) but obtained 7,1 points out of 20, she was informed of her exclusion from the competition.

The notice of competition clearly stated that the test would contain spelling, grammatical and syntax mistakes. Test d), composed of two texts, contained 96 mistakes. There was a distinction between these mistakes and the number of points varied according to it, depending on whether it was a serious mistake (such as spelling mistakes) or a simple one (such as grammatical mistakes). The importance of each mistake which had not been corrected or wrongly corrected varied according to this distinction.

In order to ensure an equal treatment for all candidates, the Selection Board beforehand established common correction criteria which had been communicated to the examiners in charge of the correction of the tests.

According to established case law, a Selection Board is not obliged to specify those replies given by candidates which were considered insufficient or why these replies were judged insufficient. The correction criteria adopted by the Selection Board before the beginning of the tests belong to the assessments it makes on the respective merits of the candidates. It has also been recognised that the communication of the marks obtained in the different tests is a sufficient reasoning of the Selection Board's decisions.

The complainant's observations

No observations appear to have been received from the complainant.

THE DECISION

1 The alleged failure to give the complainant information on the marking system used for the correction of test d)

1.1 The complainant applied to take part in competition COM/C/1/02 organised to draw up a reserve list of French-speaking typists. As she was among the 1,000 best candidates after the preselection tests, she was invited to participate in the written tests. Point VI B of the notice of competition stated that written test d) would be marked on a maximum 20 points and that candidates had to obtain a minimum of 10 points. Given that the complainant had not obtained the minimum of ten points required by the notice of competition for test d) but obtained 7,1 points out of 20, she was informed of her exclusion from the competition. She alleged that EPSO had failed to give her information on the marking system used for the correction of test d).

1.2 The European Commission stated that, in order to ensure an equal treatment for all candidates, the Selection Board beforehand established common correction criteria which had been communicated to the examiners in charge of the correction of the tests. According to established case-law, a Selection Board is not obliged to specify those replies given by the candidates which were considered insufficient or why these replies were judged insufficient. The correction criteria adopted by the Selection Board before the beginning of the tests belong to the assessments it makes on the respective merits of the candidates. It has also been recognised that the communication of the marks obtained in the different tests constitutes sufficient reasoning of the Selection Board's decisions.

1.3 The European Ombudsman notes that the President of the Selection Board informed the complainant that the test contained 96 spelling, grammatical and syntax mistakes that had to be corrected. The President of the Selection Board further informed the complainant that there was a distinction between these mistakes, that the number of points varied according to it, depending on whether it was a serious mistake (such as a spelling mistake) or a simple one (such as a grammatical mistake) and that the importance of each mistake which had not been corrected or wrongly corrected varied according to this distinction. The European Ombudsman further notes that the complainant was sent a copy of her examination paper and of the corrected version of test d).

1.4 In these circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that the Selection Board has provided the complainant with sufficient information on the marking system used for the correction of test d).

2 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 also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS