Dear Mr D.,
On 13 July 1999 you lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman against the Commission of the European Communities concerning your exclusion from the written tests in competition COM/A/12/98.
On 21 July 1999 I forwarded the complaint to the Commission for its comments.
The Commission sent its opinion on your complaint on 8 November 1999, and I forwarded it to you on 15 November 1999 with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished, by 31 December 1999.
No observations have been received from you to date.
I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

On 13 July 1999, the complainant complained against the refusal of the Commission to allow him to inspect the marked preselection examination script and to admit him to the written test of competition COM/A/12/98 organised by the Commission. In a letter of 30 April 1999, the Selection Board had informed the complainant that he could not be admitted to the written tests since he had failed to obtain the necessary number of points in one of the four preselection tests. On 25 May 1999, the complainant asked the Commission to review this decision and to grant him access to his marked examination script. In a letter of 21 June 1999, the Selection Board rejected these requests and confirmed its previous decision.
The complainant argues that candidates are entitled to have access to their marked examination scripts. With regard to his second claim, the complainant claims that originally only some 1200 candidates had passed the preselection tests whilst 1900 candidates ought to have been admitted. The Commission had therefore subsequently decided to admit 700 more candidates to the written test. The complainant claims that in view of his good marks he should have been admitted as well.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion
With regard to the first claim of the complainant, the Commission referred to the position which it had taken on that matter in previous cases and according to which it was not customary to allow candidates to inspect their marked examination scripts.
In so far as the complainant's second claim was concerned, the Commission argued that the complainant's view was based on an incorrect reading of the notice of competition. It was true that for the five competitions COM/A/8-12/98 the number of candidates who could be admitted to the written test had been set at 1900 in total. The corresponding number for competition COM/A/12/98 alone was 380. These figures had only been introduced in order to limit the number of candidates who could be admitted to the written test. However, since only 358 candidates had passed the preselection test in that competition and the overall number of successful candidates had only been 1 374, these limits had not been reached. All the successful candidates had been admitted to the written test.
The complainant's observations
No observations were received from the complainant.

THE DECISION

1 Refusal to grant access to marked examination script
1.1 The complainant claims that the Commission of the European Communities ought to grant him access to his marked examination script in competition COM/A/12/98.
1.2 The Commission argues that it is not customary to allow candidates to inspect their marked examination scripts.
1.3 On 18 October 1999, the Ombudsman submitted a Special Report(1) to the European Parliament. In this report, the Ombudsman expressed the view that the Commission's refusal to give candidates the possibility to inspect their own marked examination scripts constituted maladministration. In view of this, the Ombudsman considers that there is no need further to inquire into the complainant's allegation in the present case(2).
2 Refusal to admit to written test
2.1 The complainant alleges that originally only some 1200 candidates had passed the preselection tests whilst 1900 candidates ought to have been admitted. He claims that the Commission had therefore subsequently decided to admit 700 more candidates to the written tests. The complainant argues that in view of his good marks he should have been admitted as well.
2.2 The Commission claims that the complainant's view is based on an incorrect reading of the notice of competition. It points out that for the five competitions COM/A/8-12/98 the number of candidates who could be admitted to the written test had been set at 1900 in total. The corresponding number for competition COM/A/12/98 alone was 380. These figures had only been introduced in order to limit the number of candidates who could be admitted to the written test. However, since only 358 candidates had passed the preselection test in that competition and the overall number of successful candidates had only been 1 374, these limits had not been reached. All the successful candidates had been admitted to the written tests.
2.3 The explanation provided by the Commission appears to be reasonable. If the Commission decides to limit the number of applicants who can be admitted to the written test on the basis of the results achieved at the preselection test, this limit can only become relevant where the number of candidates who have passed the preselection test exceeds that number. This does not appear to have been the case here.
3 Conclusion
On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint and in so far as such inquiries proved to be necessary, there appears to have been no maladministration on the part of the European Commission. The Ombudsman therefore closes the file.
The President of the European Commission will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely
Jacob SÖDERMAN

---

(1) Special Report following the own-initiative inquiry into the secrecy which forms part of the Commission's recruitment procedures.

(2) The Commission has meanwhile announced that it will give candidates access to their own marked examination scripts from 1 July 2000 (cf. Press Release no. 16/99 of the Ombudsman of 15 December 1999).