Strasbourg, 2 May 2007

Dear Mr T.,

On 22 August 2005, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Communities Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) concerning the rejection of your application to Open Competition EPSO/A/17/04.

On 20 September 2005, I forwarded the complaint to the Director of EPSO. EPSO sent its opinion on 28 November 2005. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 20 December 2005.

On 22 March 2006, I requested further information from EPSO. EPSO sent its complementary comments on 27 April 2006. I forwarded them to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. 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.

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the facts are, in summary, as follows.

The complainant took part in competition EPSO/A/17/04, which concerned administrators in specialist fields of research - field 1: Chemistry and biology(1).

On 28 July 2005, EPSO informed him that he was excluded from the competition because of his insufficient professional experience.

On 29 July 2005, he requested a re-examination of his application.

On 16 August 2005, the Selection Board confirmed its decision to exclude the complainant from the competition. According to the Selection Board, the complainant had obtained his degree (engineer) giving access to the competition on 30 June 2001 and did not therefore have three years of professional experience at the closing date for registration, that is, on 30 April 2004. Moreover, the degree of "gradué en ingénierie chimique" ("graduate in chemical science and engineering") cannot be taken into consideration because it is not a recognised degree, as the certificate provided by the complainant cannot be considered as a full university degree in accordance with the Notice of Competition.

In his complaint, the complainant argued that he has another degree ("titre de gradué en ingénierie chimique") giving access to the competition, which he obtained on 25 May 2000. According to him, he has three years of professional experience subsequent to that date. He did not understand why the Selection Board did not take into account this degree, as it was equivalent to the one required by the Notice of Competition and it gave him access to a postgraduate degree ("Diplôme d'Etudes Approfondies, DEA") at the university, that is the second year of a master in the LMD (Licence, Master, Doctorat) system. The complainant hoped that his degree would be taken into account by the Selection Board. If this did not turn out to be the case, he argued that he has been discriminated against. He requested that his written test be corrected immediately, because if the procedure before the Ombudsman is not finished before the end of the correction of the written tests, his test will no longer be corrected anonymously.

The complainant alleged that the Selection Board should have considered his degree of "gradué en ingénierie chimique" as a degree giving access to the competition and thus noted that he had three years of professional experience acquired after obtaining the degree required.

THE INQUIRY

EPSO's opinion

EPSO's opinion can be summarised as follows.

EPSO explained that, to establish whether a candidate has the required number of years of professional experience, that is three years before 30 April 2005(2), the degree giving access to the competition should be identified. In accordance with the Notice of Competition (paragraph II.1), candidates "must have successfully completed a full university course and obtained a degree in the field [candidates] have chosen for this competition (...) [candidates] will only be considered if [their] university degree is of a level that gives access to doctoral studies." Moreover, examples of degrees giving access to the competition were given in the Guide for applicants, available on EPSO's website at the time the competition was published in the Official Journal. In this Guide, it was noted that, as regards France, a "maîtrise" was the appropriate degree. The Selection Board considered that the degree of engineer (master level) obtained by the complainant in June 2001 was the appropriate degree. Only this degree gives access to doctoral studies, because the degree of "gradué en ingénierie chimique" is not a recognised degree, since the certificate provided by the complainant cannot be considered as a full university degree(3).

Given the date when the complainant obtained his degree giving access to the competition, that is, 30 June 2001, he did not have three years of professional experience at the closing date for applying for the competition, which was 30 April 2004. That is the reason why the Selection Board rejected the complainant's application.

Given that the complainant did not meet one of the conditions, the Selection Board was not able to correct his written test.

The complainant's observations

The complainant pointed out that, according to the French Educational System, doctoral studies start with a DEA. He referred to a statement from the Ministry of Education "le diplôme d'études approfondies (DEA) est la première année des études doctorales". He was registered in a DEA from October 2000 to July 2001. He obtained his DEA on 12 July 2001. This registration was possible because in September 2000 he had a degree giving access to doctoral studies, that is "gradué en ingénierie chimique". Thus, the "gradué en ingénierie chimique" is a degree giving access to doctoral studies. Moreover, it is a full degree, as it is possible to stop the studies after this degree.

The complainant understood that EPSO could not know all degrees giving access to doctoral studies in the 25 Member States and EPSO's list of such degrees could not be exhaustive. He requested that his degree of "gradué" be recognised.

Further inquiries

After careful consideration of EPSO's opinion and the complainant's observations, it appeared that further inquiries were necessary. Therefore, the Ombudsman requested EPSO to:

• comment on the complainant's argument that his degree of "graduate in chemical science and engineering" allowed him to attend a DEA programme ("Diplôme d'Etudes Approfondies") and hence gave him access to doctoral studies, since the DEA is the first year of doctoral studies;
• elaborate on its statements that (1) "the degree of 'graduate in chemical science and engineering' is not a recognised degree" and (2) "the certificate provided by the complainant cannot be considered as a full university degree".

The Ombudsman also asked EPSO to provide him with a copy of all degrees submitted by the complainant in his application.

EPSO's further reply

In its further reply, EPSO made the following remarks:

EPSO explained that the complainant attached the following degrees to his application:

1. baccalauréat, dated 11 October 1995,
2. certificate, dated 10 May 2004, stating that he has met the academic requirements at the end of the second year at the Ecole nationale supérieure de chimie de Paris ("ENSCP") ("Gradué en ingénierie chimique"),
3. degree of engineer (Master level), dated 30 June 2004, obtained after the third year at the ENSCP (2000-2001),
4. DEA, dated 12 July 2001, obtained after having attended the DEA programme and the third year at the ENSCP, that is also for the academic year 2000-2001,
5. doctoral degree, dated 20 October 2004.

As regards the certificate mentioned in point (2), the title of "graduate in chemical science and engineering" is only "equivalent to the first year of the Master's degree in chemical science engineering - French baccalauréat + 4". According to EPSO, the certificate proves that the applicant has passed the exams of the second year at the ENSCP. EPSO added that the engineer education at the ENSCP lasted three years. During the examination of the complainant's application, EPSO contacted the ENSCP in order to obtain information on the value of this certificate. It appeared that the certificate did not have the same value as a diploma attesting the completion of university studies, as required by the Notice of Competition. EPSO informed the Selection Board accordingly and added that the certificate is issued by the ENSCP at the request of students who wish to establish the level of their studies in order to have access to professional education abroad. In addition to the level of studies, the certificate indicates on its back the list of the courses attended.

EPSO recalled that, in accordance with the case-law(4), the requirement to hold a university degree in order to apply for the competition should be interpreted in the light of the relevant national legislation of the Member State where the candidate studied.

As regards the complainant's degree of engineer, it was delivered at the end of the academic year 2000-2001 and was obtained after three years of studies. It is equivalent to a master degree. EPSO recalled that there were different ways of being admitted to the school, the most common being admission after an entry exam and after having attended two or three years of preparatory courses taken in a school or a university. Finally, EPSO specified that, during the third year of studies, students who choose the option "Research" may simultaneously attend a DEA programme.

The complainant's final observations

No observations were received from the complainant.

THE DECISION

1 Relevant part of the Notice of Competition and of the Guide for applicants

The Notice of Competition provides, in relevant part, the following:

"1. Certificates and diplomas

You must have successfully completed a full university course and obtained a degree in the field you have chosen for this competition, e.g. physics, chemistry, life sciences, materials science, engineering, geography, agronomy, mathematics, statistics and/or economics.

You will be considered only if your university degree is of a level that gives access to doctoral studies. The selection board will allow for differences between education systems. A table showing examples of the diplomas required for this competition is annexed to the Guide for applicants (see EPSO website)."

The Guide for applicants states the following:

"ANNEX 1A - EXAMPLES OF DIPLOMAS FOR WHICH THE LEVEL OF EDUCATION CORRESPONDS TO THAT REQUIRED FOR ACCESS TO COMPETITIONS OF CATEGORY A/LA

(...)
France	Maîtrise

(...)"

2 Allegation that the Selection Board wrongly failed to consider the complainant's degree of "gradué en ingénierie chimique" as a degree giving him access to the competition

2.1 The complainant took part in Open Competition EPSO/A/17/04, but he was excluded from the competition because of insufficient professional experience. He alleged that the Selection Board should have considered his degree of "gradué en ingénierie chimique" obtained in May 2000 as a degree giving access to the competition and thus noted that he had three years of professional experience after obtaining the degree required. He argues that his degree of "gradué en ingénierie chimique" is equivalent to the one required by the Notice of Competition, since it gave him access to a postgraduate degree at the university.

2.2 In its opinion, EPSO explained that, to establish whether a candidate has the required number of years of professional experience, the degree giving access to the competition should be identified. In accordance with the Notice of Competition (paragraph II.1), candidates "must have successfully completed a full university course and obtained a degree in the field [they] have chosen for this competition (...) [candidates] will only be considered if [their] university degree is of a level that gives access to doctoral studies." Moreover, examples of degrees giving access to the competition were given in the Guide for applicants, available on EPSO's website at the time the competition was published in the Official Journal. In this Guide, it was noted that, as regards France, a "maîtrise" was the appropriate degree. The Selection Board considered that the degree of engineer obtained by the complainant in June 2001 was the appropriate degree. Only this degree gives access to doctoral studies, because the degree of "gradué en ingénierie chimique" is not a recognised degree, as the certificate provided by the complainant cannot be considered as a full university degree.

Given the date when the complainant obtained his degree giving access to the competition (30 June 2001), it follows that he did not have three years of professional experience at the closing date for applying for the competition (30 April 2004). That is the reason why the Selection Board rejected the complainant's application.

2.3 In his observations, the complainant pointed out that, according to the French Educational System, doctoral studies start with a DEA. He referred to a statement from the Ministry of Education "le diplôme d'études approfondies (DEA) est la première année des études doctorales". He was registered in a DEA from October 2000 to July 2001. This registration was possible because in September 2000 he held a degree giving access to doctoral studies, that is "gradué en ingénierie chimique". Thus, the "gradué en ingénierie chimique" is a degree giving access to doctoral studies. Moreover, it is a full degree, as it is possible to stop the studies after this degree.

2.4 In its further opinion, EPSO stated, inter alia, that the certificate submitted by the complainant regarding his title of "graduate in chemical science and engineering" proves that the applicant has passed the exams of the second year at the ENSCP. EPSO added that the engineer education at the ENSCP lasted three years. During the examination of the complainant's application, EPSO contacted the ENSCP in order to obtain information on the value of this certificate. It appeared that the certificate did not have the same value as a diploma attesting the completion of university studies, as required by the Notice of Competition. EPSO informed the Selection Board accordingly and added that the certificate was issued by the ENSCP at the request of students who wish to establish the level of their studies in order to have access to professional education abroad. In addition to the level of studies, the certificate indicates on its back the list of the courses attended.

EPSO recalled that, in accordance with the case-law, the requirement to hold a university degree in order to apply for the competition should be interpreted in the light of the relevant national legislation of the Member State where the candidate studied.

2.5 The Ombudsman, first, notes that the Notice of Competition required that candidates have "successfully completed a full university course and obtained a degree in the field [they] have chosen for the competition" (emphasis added). The complainant argues that the degree giving him access to the competition was the one that he obtained in May 2000, which is "gradué en ingénierie chimique". The Ombudsman observes that the relevant certificate submitted by the complainant had the following content:

"Graduate in chemical science and engineering of ENSCP (equivalent to the 1st year of the Master's degree in chemical science and engineering - French Baccalauréat + 4)

The Director of the 'Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Chimie de Paris (ENSCP)' certifies that

[the complainant] (...)

having met the academic requirements at the end of the 2nd year of the ENSCP

has obtained (...) the title of 'gradué en ingénierie chimique' of the ENSCP".

The Ombudsman notes that the complainant has neither argued nor established that he obtained the above certificate after having completed a "full university course" at the ENSCP. Relatedly, EPSO clarified and emphasized in its further opinion that the above certificate was not a " degree in the field" of chemistry, obtained after the complainant "ha[d] successfully completed a full university course". It showed that the complainant had passed the exams of the second year at the ENSCP. Nevertheless, the engineer education at the ENSCP lasted three years. The complainant has not suggested otherwise and has not submitted observations on EPSO's further opinion.

2.6 In light of the above, the Ombudsman finds that the complainant's allegation has not been substantiated. Therefore no corresponding instance of maladministration has been established.

3 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by EPSO corresponding to the allegation made by the complainant. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The Director of EPSO will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) OJ 2004 C 81 A.

(2) Though EPSO indicates the date to be 30 April 2005, the correct date appears to be 30 April 2004.

(3) EPSO stated the following in French: "(...) le titre de 'gradué en ingénierie chimique' n'est pas un diplôme reconnu, l'attestation fournie datée du 10 mai 2004 n'ayant pas de valeur de diplôme de fin d'études (...)".

(4) Case T-332/01 Pujals Gomis v Commission [2002] ECR-SC IA-233 and II-1155, paragraph 67.