Strasbourg, 20 July 2005

Dear Mr J.,

On 8 October 2004, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Parliament concerning your exclusion from competition PE/98/A (Principal administrators (A5/A4) - Engineers with telecommunications expertise).

On 12 November 2004, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Parliament. The European Parliament sent its opinion on 28 February 2005. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 28 April 2005.

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 as follows:

Complaint 1029/2004/AJ

The complainant took part in competition PE/98/A (principal administrators (A5/A4) Engineers with telecommunications expertise)(1) organised by the European Parliament. The first step in the competition was the assessment by the Selection Board of the qualifications of candidates and the establishment of a list of the 15 best candidates to be admitted to the oral tests.

On 29 March 2004, the complainant was informed that his application was rejected because he was not amongst the 15 best candidates.

On 31 March 2004, the complainant wrote to Parliament requesting the re-examination of his application. He also claimed damages for racial discrimination and lack of transparency. He sent a copy of this letter to the Ombudsman, which was registered as a complaint (1029/2004/AJ).

The Ombudsman declared the complaint inadmissible in accordance with Article 2(4) of the Statute, given that the complainant had not completed the appropriate administrative approaches to the European Parliament at the time of making his complaint.

Complaint 1897/2004/ELB

On 7 June 2004, the complainant renewed his complaint with the Ombudsman.

He explained that, on 21 April 2004, Parliament informed him that his application had been re-examined but that the decision excluding him from the competition was confirmed. Parliament explained that the same criteria were applied to all candidates. These criteria are listed on the evaluation sheet. The complainant obtained 9.76 points out of 20 for his qualifications and was therefore ranked 25th out of 37 candidates. A copy of the evaluation sheet, as established by the Selection Board, was sent to the complainant.

The complaint was declared inadmissible because, according to Article 195 of the EC Treaty, there were insufficient grounds for opening an inquiry. The Ombudsman considered that Parliament's reply dated 21 April 2004 appeared reasonable and that the complainant had not explained why this reply was incorrect.

The present complaint: 3237/2004/ELB

On 8 October 2004, the complainant lodged a new complaint with the Ombudsman against the European Parliament. He argued that, when examining his application for competition PE/98/A, Parliament wrongly evaluated his professional experience, because he was granted only 1.36 points for 20 years of professional experience.

The complainant also argued that he was discriminated against on the basis of his race, because of a picture that he attached to his CV.

The complainant alleged that Parliament failed correctly to assess his professional experience.

THE INQUIRY

The European Parliament's opinion

The opinion of the European Parliament can be summarised as follows:

The complainant applied for competition PE/98/A organised by the European Parliament and, on the basis of the supporting documents attached to his application, he was allowed to take part in the competition. In accordance with the notice of competition, the Selection Board examined his application and assessed his qualifications. The complainant obtained 9.6 points out of 20 and was ranked 25th out of 37 candidates. He was consequently not amongst the 15 best candidates who were invited to the oral tests. On 29 March 2004, he was informed of the Selection Board's decision.

On 31 March 2004, the complainant requested a re-examination of his application. On 21 April 2004, the Selection Board confirmed its decision.

The assessment of the candidates' diplomas is a comparative exercise of the merits of candidates. To ensure equal treatment of candidates, the Selection Board examined the candidates' diplomas according to an evaluation sheet, which was established beforehand on the basis of the notice of competition and applied similarly to all candidates. The Selection Board only took into account the information provided by the candidates in their application.

As regards the professional experience of candidates, 0 to 0.4 points were granted for each year of professional experience acquired after obtaining the degree giving access to the competition and beyond the 11 years required. On 29 June 1988, the complainant obtained his engineering diploma. Consequently, the Selection Board did not take into account his professional experience before that date. The length of the complainant's experience beyond the 11 years required is three years and four months, which corresponds to 1.36 points. Furthermore, 0 to 0.4 points were granted for each different area of experience. The candidate's experience had to include a logical combination of at least eight of the 13 areas mentioned in the notice of competition. The complainant provided copies of three contracts, which did not specify in detail the nature of his duties, and mentioned overlapping dates for the beginning and end of the different contracts. The Selection Board considered that the complainant had an appropriate combination of 8 areas and granted him 1.4 points.

The Selection Board could not take into account the information provided by the complainant in his CV and in his re-examination request because: the CV is not a supporting document; information provided after the closing date for applications could not be taken into account; and the information contained in the re-examination request was not supported by any document provided before the closing date for applications.

In accordance with established case-law, the Selection Board enjoys a wide margin of discretion as regards the assessment of the candidates' merits and the administration cannot modify a decision of the Selection Board not to invite candidates to the oral tests.

In his complaint, the complainant argues that he has been discriminated against on the basis of his race, because of a picture that he attached to his CV. The Selection Board considers this argument as unjustified. All applications were examined on the basis of the supporting documents and the same evaluation sheet. Candidates' CVs were not taken into account.

The Selection Board acted in compliance with the notice of the competition and no irregularity was noticed.

The complainant's observations

In his observations, the complainant maintained his complaint. He stated that his extensive professional experience and in particular his experience between 1982 and 1988 were not taken into account.

He attached to his observations a copy of a letter that he sent to a French county court, to the French specialised body fighting against discrimination ("Haute autorité de lutte contre les discriminations et pour l'égalité") and to the United Nations Committee on the elimination of racial discrimination. In this letter, the complainant stated that he wished to lodge a complaint against discrimination in employment based on age and race. He requested from the State Prosecutor, the senior investigating magistrate of the county court of Paris, and the President of the French body fighting against discrimination to initiate proceedings against the European Parliament and other private companies which publish discriminatory job advertisements.

On 4 May 2005, he sent a new letter to the European Ombudsman with a similar content.

THE DECISION

1 Alleged failure correctly to assess the complainant's professional experience

1.1 The complainant took part in competition PE/98/A, which was organised by the European Parliament. His application was excluded from the competition because he was not amongst the 15 best candidates. The complainant alleged that Parliament failed correctly to assess his professional experience. He argued that Parliament wrongly evaluated his professional experience, because he was granted only 1.36 points for 20 years of professional experience.

1.2 The Commission explained that, as regards the professional experience of candidates, 0 to 0.4 points were granted for each year of professional experience acquired after obtaining the degree giving access to the competition and beyond the 11 years required. The complainant obtained his engineering diploma on 29 June 1988. Consequently, the Selection Board did not take into account his professional experience before that date. The length of the complainant's experience beyond the 11 years required was therefore three years and four months, which corresponds to 1.36 points.

1.3 The Ombudsman recalls first that, according to established case-law, "a Selection Board in a competition on the basis of qualifications and tests has a broad discretion when assessing the qualifications and relevant experience of the candidates and the Court of First Instance must confine itself to examining whether the exercise of that discretion was vitiated by a manifest error"(2). The Ombudsman considers that, in carrying out his own task of examining whether there is maladministration in the present case, it is appropriate for him to assess whether the explanations provided by the European Parliament are reasonable.

1.4 The Ombudsman notes that, according to the notice of competition, the professional experience required was "at least 11 years' multidisciplinary professional experience in information and communication technologies, acquired after obtaining the degree giving access to the competition" and that, according to the evaluation sheet, extra points were granted when the candidate had more than 11 years of relevant professional experience. The Ombudsman also notes that the complainant does not appear to have questioned the information put forward in the Parliament's opinion that he obtained the appropriate degree for the competition on 29 June 1988 and that he has three years and four months of experience beyond the 11 years required. He further notes that the complainant was granted 1.36 points for his three years and four months of experience.

1.5 In light of the above, the Ombudsman considers that Parliament has provided a reasonable explanation of the basis on which it assessed the complainant’s professional experience and the points that were awarded to the complainant for his professional experience.

1.6 In support of his allegation that Parliament failed correctly to assess his professional experience, the complainant also argues that he was discriminated against on the basis of his race.

1.7 In its opinion, Parliament explained that the Selection Board considers the complainant's argument that he was discriminated against on the basis of his race because of a picture that he attached to his CV to be unjustified. According to the European Parliament, all applications were examined on the basis of the supporting documents and the same evaluation sheet and candidates' CVs were not taken into account.

1.8 The Ombudsman has found no evidence that the complainant was discriminated against on the basis of his race.

1.9 The Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration by the European Parliament.

2 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) OJ C 38 A, 12.2.2004.

(2) See Case T-101/96, Maria Elisabeth Wolf v. Commission of the European Communities, [1997] ECR II-949, paragraph 68.