The background to the complaint

1. The complaint concerns selection procedure ECDC/CA/III/2010/FA for the recruitment of a Financial Assistant (Contract Agent) by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control ('ECDC').

2. The complainant participated in the selection procedure. On 6 May 2010, he sat a written test which was sent to him by e-mail and was designed to be taken at home. On 18 May 2010, he attended an interview at ECDC. On 6 July 2010, he was informed by e-mail that there had been an "unforeseen delay in the process". By e-mail of 23 July 2010, ECDC informed him that another candidate had been selected for the post.

3. Following a request from the complainant, ECDC sent him an e-mail, dated 27 July 2010, in which it provided him with more detailed information about his performance in the tests. The complainant submitted a complaint to ECDC on 13 August 2010, concerning the selection procedure and its outcome. ECDC replied by letter dated 26 November 2010, arguing that both the proceedings in the selection procedure in question and the decisions relating to it had been carried out in accordance with the rules governing the Selection Committee's work.

The subject matter of the inquiry

4. In his complaint to the European Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that ECDC failed to carry out the selection procedure in a fair and proper manner.

5. In support of his allegation, the complainant argued that:

(a) ECDC does not have an adequate procedure in place to re-evaluate the performance of candidates who complain. This is evidenced, in particular, by the fact that ECDC did not provide a detailed answer to the eleven arguments the complainant put forward in his complaint.

(b) ECDC changed the rules regarding the selection procedure during the course of the selection procedure. The selection committee decided not to take the written test into account when awarding the final mark.

(c) ECDC evaluated the candidates on the basis of discretion instead of strictly adhering to the selection criteria.

(d) ECDC failed to announce the results in a timely manner.

(e) ECDC did not inform the candidates of their results.

(f) ECDC did not inform the candidates that the written test was not taken into account in the evaluation.

(g) ECDC did not inform the candidates whether or not they had been put on the reserve list.

(h) ECDC failed to specify, in the recruitment notice, that the candidates had to obtain a minimum score of 70% in order to be put on the reserve list.

(i) ECDC marked unfairly the complainant's responses to questions 4, 7, 8 and 9 at the interview.

(j) The representative from the HR department and the representative from the Staff Committee did not fulfil their roles during the procedure.

6. The complainant claimed that ECDC should include him on the reserve list of successful candidates.

The inquiry

7. The Ombudsman asked ECDC to submit an opinion on the complaint by 30 June 2011. The opinion was forwarded to the complainant, who submitted his observations on 14 August 2011. On 30 November 2011, the Ombudsman made a proposal for a friendly solution to ECDC which submitted its reply on 22 December 2011. That reply was forwarded to the complainant with an invitation to submit observations by 29 February 2012. The Ombudsman did not receive any observations from the complainant.

The Ombudsman's analysis and conclusions

A. The allegedly unfair and improper selection procedure and related claim

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

8. ECDC argued that the complainant's request for re-evaluation was dealt with by the Director of ECDC, who concluded that both the proceedings of the Selection Committee and their subsequent recommendations had been carried out in accordance with the rules governing the work of the Selection Committee. The Director acknowledged, in particular, that the assessments made by the Selection Committee when evaluating the abilities and knowledge of candidates constitute the expression of a value judgment which falls within the margin of discretion enjoyed by the Selection Committee.

9. According to ECDC, the written tests were assessed by the Selection Committee, without divulging the candidates' identities. The assessment led to the conclusion that, due to the fact that too much emphasis had been placed on one area of responsibility, namely, accounting, the test results were not indicative of the full spectrum of job requirements as defined in the vacancy notice. After careful consideration, the Selection Committee acknowledged that the content of the written test was not adequate for the post and unanimously reached the conclusion that the written test results should not be binding for the final assessment of candidates. ECDC pointed out that the candidates' identities were not disclosed until the assessment of the written tests had been finalised. Accordingly, the decision that the results of the written test should not be binding did not prejudice any particular candidate.

10. ECDC further argued that, despite the fact that the assessment made by the Selection Committee constitutes the expression of a value judgement, the evaluation of candidates was carried out in strict adherence to the selection criteria defined in the vacancy notice.

11. As regards the alleged delay in the procedure, ECDC stated that candidates applying to participate in a selection procedure receive an automatic notification that the typical timescale of a selection procedure is three to six months. The present selection procedure was carried out in less than five months. The closing date for applications was 8 March 2010 and the complainant was informed of the selection procedure's outcome on 23 July 2010, two days, that is, after the appointment decision had been made. The information provided to the candidates differed depending on the individual outcome. According to ECDC, candidates were informed whether they: (i) had been appointed for the post; (ii) had been included in the reserve list; (iii) had not been short-listed and were therefore unsuccessful after the interview stage; or (iv) had been unsuccessful after the screening of applications. The complainant was informed that he was not successful after the interview stage.

12. According to ECDC, the complainant was informed in an individual communication sent by the chairman of the Selection Committee on 2 August 2010 that the written test results had not been considered during the final evaluation of candidates. In this communication, the complainant was also informed about the threshold score of 70% required in order to be put on the reserve list. In its opinion to the Ombudsman, ECDC recognised the need to provide this information in an official document accessible to the public. ECDC undertook to include the information in question in the revised recruitment procedure, which was finalised in July 2011.

13. According to ECDC, the responses given by the complainant during the interview were individually evaluated by the Selection Committee members who then unanimously reached an agreement on the final scores given to candidates in each area of assessment. ECDC argued that it is within the mandate and discretion of the Selection Committee to evaluate the performance of candidates in the interview and that the scores given to the complainant for his answers to the questions were therefore justified. The selection procedure was conducted in a proper way and the roles of the Selection Committee and the representative of ECDC Human Resources were duly fulfilled.

14. In his observations on ECDC's opinion, the complainant argued that the quality of the selection procedure was seriously undermined by the decision not to take into account the results of the written test. The legal legitimacy of the selection procedure was also undermined, and, as a result, the procedure became less transparent and precise. The complainant maintained his concerns about how this decision was communicated to candidates. He also questioned the coherence between the information provided in ECDC's communication to him regarding the matter, and the information provided in its opinion to the Ombudsman. The complainant acknowledged that selection committees enjoy discretion when evaluating candidates. However, he rejected the view that this discretion could be used to justify non-transparent decisions.

15. The complainant further stated that it is clear that, at the time of the selection procedure, there was no publicly announced valid rule according to which obtaining a minimum score of 70% was a prerequisite for being put on the reserve list. According to the complainant, the 70% rule was artificial and cannot serve as a valid reason for not putting him on the reserve list.

The Ombudsman's preliminary assessment leading to a friendly solution proposal

The re-evaluation procedure

16. The Ombudsman underlined that, according to consistent case-law of the Court of Justice of the EU, selection committees enjoy a wide margin of discretion when assessing the knowledge and ability of the candidates in a selection procedure. Not even the EU judicature has jurisdiction to review the assessment made by a selection committee, unless the rules which govern the proceedings of the selection committee have been infringed or the assessment is tainted by a manifest error[1]. Accordingly, the same limited possibility to review the assessment of candidates made by the Selection Committee in selection procedure ECDC/CA/III/2010/FA applied to the Director of ECDC, as the Appointing Authority. As long as the procedural rules were followed and no manifest error of assessment was made, there existed no legal basis upon which the Director could ask the Selection Committee to re-evaluate the performance of candidates. The Ombudsman noted that, in reply to the complainant's complaint to ECDC about the selection procedure in question, the Director of ECDC stated that he had "looked into both the proceedings of the Selection Committee as well as the rationale for the selection recommendations provided to the Appointing Authority", and that he considered that the proceedings and decisions of the Selection Committee had been made in accordance with the rules governing its work. On the basis of that finding, the Ombudsman considered that the Director had no reason - or any legal possibility for that matter - to request a re-evaluation of the performance of candidates. The Ombudsman thus found the re-evaluation procedure in place at ECDC to be in line with established EU case-law.

17. The Ombudsman noted that his finding below (see paragraphs 18-25) that the Selection Committee made a procedural mistake in respect of the written test did not affect this conclusion, given that the complainant's request for a re-evaluation was made in relation to his answers to the questions asked during the interview.

The decision not to take the written test into account

18. The Ombudsman noted that the relevant vacancy notice stated that "[c]andidates may be requested to undergo written tests". According to consistent EU case-law, the Selection Committee is bound by the wording of the vacancy notice as published[2]. In respect of the present selection procedure, the vacancy notice provided the selection committee with the possibility to ask candidates to take a written test. The Selection Committee eventually decided to exercise that possibility and asked the candidates it had invited for an interview to take a written test encompassing knowledge of both EU affairs and professional matters.

19. EU case-law also stipulates that the Appointing Authority enjoys wide discretion in (a) deciding upon the criteria which establish the competences required for the posts that are to be filled and (b) in determining, in light of those criteria and in the interests of the service, the rules and conditions under which a recruitment procedure is organised. The arrangements made for the purpose of conducting a test may only be reviewed to the extent necessary to ensure that candidates were treated equally and that the candidate ultimately chosen by the Selection Committee was objectively selected[3].

20. The Ombudsman noted that, in the present case, the competence criteria which had to be met in order to qualify for the post were set out in the vacancy notice, as they ought to be[4]. Accordingly, and as laid down by EU case-law, ECDC had to organise the recruitment procedure in light of these criteria.

21. The Ombudsman noted that, according to the vacancy notice, the selection criteria which had to be met to qualify for the post in question were as follows: "Proven experience in a financial/accounting/contracting and administrative environment; good exposure and understanding of administrative processes and systems; good and thorough with figures ; good learning abilities and flexible in work scheduling; ability to organise work and prioritise accordingly; ability to communicate internally/externally in an open and correct way; a service oriented attitude; good team-working abilities; excellent command of English, oral and written; thorough knowledge of Microsoft Office". Experience in working in a rapidly expanding organisation was also identified as advantageous.

22. ECDC argued that, once the written test had been held, it became clear that its content was not adequate for the post, due to the fact that it placed too much emphasis on one area of responsibility, namely, accounting. According to ECDC, the test results were therefore not indicative of the full spectrum of job requirements as defined in the vacancy notice.

23. Given the listed selection criteria (see paragraph 21 above), the Ombudsman acknowledged that a test which places particular emphasis on accounting would not correctly reflect the entire range of criteria required to be met for the post. Thus, if disproportionate importance was given to the results of the test, this would not constitute an appropriate way to organise the selection procedure in accordance with the EU case-law.

24. The Ombudsman noted that the decision of the Selection Committee in respect of the written test was that it should not be taken into account at all. The Ombudsman did not consider this decision to be in line with the Selection Committee's conclusion that the written test did not fully correspond to the requirements in the vacancy notice. Given that "[p]roven experience in ... accounting ... environment" did indeed constitute part of the selection criteria, the Ombudsman found that the written test must, to some extent, have corresponded to the requirements in the vacancy notice. After having detected the flaw in the written test, the Selection Committee thus had wide discretion in deciding to what extent the written test should be taken into account. It could, for example, have decided on an appropriate weighting of the results of the written tests in order to allow them to reflect the relative importance of the tested knowledge compared to all the selection criteria. However, the Ombudsman took the view that the Selection Committee's decision not to take the written test into account at all exceeded the limits of its discretion, since it was not fully consistent with the requirement established in the EU case-law that recruitment procedures be organised in light of the selection criteria.

25. On the basis of the foregoing, the Ombudsman made a corresponding proposal for a friendly solution, in accordance with Article 3(5) of the Statute of the European Ombudsman (see paragraph 39 below).

The evaluation of candidates

26. As noted by the Ombudsman in paragraph 16 above, consistent EU case-law has confirmed that a selection committee has a wide margin of discretion when assessing the knowledge and abilities of candidates in a selection procedure[5]. Assessments made by a selection committee when examining the candidates' knowledge and abilities are expressions of value judgments as to the candidates' performance in a test. These assessments fall within the wide margin of discretion accorded to the selection committee and cannot be reviewed unless the rules which govern the proceedings of the selection committee have been infringed or a manifest error has been committed[6].

27. The Ombudsman noted from ECDC's letter dated 2 August 2010, written in response to the complainant's request for further information, that the questions put to candidates during the interview were directly related to each selection criterion set out in the vacancy notice (see paragraph 21 above). The complainant did not argue that these were not the questions asked during the interview. The Ombudsman therefore found that the Selection Committee did adhere to the selection criteria when assessing the knowledge and abilities of candidates during the interview. The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest that the Selection Committee acted outside its margin of discretion in this regard during the interview.

28. Insofar as the complainant's argument that the Selection Committee exceeded the limits of its discretion related to the decision not to take the written test into account, the Ombudsman referred to paragraph 24 above.

The timing for announcing the results

29. According to ECDC, candidates were informed that the typical timescale of a selection procedure is three to six months. The Ombudsman found this timescale entirely reasonable. Counting from the closing date for applications to the date when candidates were informed of its outcome, the selection procedure in question was carried out in less than five months. The Ombudsman therefore found no delay[7] in announcing the results of the selection procedure.

Information

30. The Ombudsman noted that candidates were informed whether or not they had obtained the post in question. Upon request, the complainant was provided with a detailed account of the results of his evaluation in the recruitment procedure. The Ombudsman therefore found that candidates were informed of their results.

31. However, given the fact that the vacancy notice stipulated that a reserve list, which might be used should similar vacancies arise in future, would also be drawn up (and would be valid until 31 December 2011), the Ombudsman considered that it would have been appropriate to inform candidates whether or not they had been placed on that reserve list[8]. According to ECDC, candidates were informed whether they: (i) had been appointed for the post; (ii) had been offered a place on the reserve list; (ii) had not been short-listed and were therefore unsuccessful after the interview stage; or (i) had been unsuccessful after the screening of applications. The Ombudsman considered such differentiation of the information provided to candidates to be appropriate. The Ombudsman noted, however, that the e-mail to the complainant informing him that another candidate had been selected for the post did not contain any information as to whether he had been put on the reserve list. ECDC's procedures as regards informing candidates of the outcome of recruitment procedures thus appeared to have failed in the present case. The Ombudsman addressed the issue in his proposal for a friendly solution.

32. The Ombudsman noted that it was only following the complainant's second request for further information about the outcome of the recruitment procedure that ECDC informed him that the Selection Committee had decided not to take into account the results of the written test. Although the Selection Committee was entitled, given the circumstances, to adjust the weighting of the written test (see paragraphs 18-25 above), the Ombudsman considered it worth bearing in mind that candidates had put time and effort into taking the test in question. The Ombudsman therefore considered that it would have been appropriate for ECDC to inform, on its own initiative, the candidates concerned, that is, those who took the test, of the Selection Committee's conclusion that the written test did not fully correspond to the requirements in the vacancy notice and to what extent it would be taken into account. The conclusion that candidates should have been informed applies a fortiori to the Selection Committee's decision (incorrect though it turned out to be in the present case) not to take the written test into account at all. This is so, given that it was reasonable for the candidates to assume that the test results would be taken into account in the final assessment of their knowledge and abilities. The Ombudsman addressed this issue in his proposal for a friendly solution.

The minimum points for being put on the reserve list

33. The Ombudsman was not provided with any evidence to suggest that the decision to set the pass rate at 70% at the interview stage (which, according to ECDC, is common practice) was not made by the Selection Committee prior to the interviews, and that the same pass rate therefore applied in order to be put on the reserve list. The Ombudsman again noted that the Appointing Authority enjoys wide discretion in determining the rules and conditions under which a recruitment procedure is organised[9]. The Ombudsman therefore considered this decision by ECDC to be reasonable. The Ombudsman, however, was of the view that, in order to be validly applied in the recruitment procedure concerned, this precondition for being put on the reserve list should have been communicated beforehand. The Ombudsman addressed this issue in his proposal for a friendly solution.

34. In its opinion to the Ombudsman, ECDC recognised the need to provide this information in a publicly accessible official document. It undertook to include the information in question in the revised recruitment procedure, which was finalised in July 2011. The Ombudsman asked ECDC, in the context of his proposal for a friendly solution, to confirm that the information in question is now being appropriately communicated.

Grading the complainant's responses in the interview

35. As noted in paragraph 16 above, the Selection Committee enjoys a wide margin of discretion when assessing the candidates' knowledge and abilities in a selection procedure. The assessment made by the Selection Committee can only be reviewed if the rules which govern its proceedings have been clearly infringed or a manifest error of appreciation has been committed[10]. The Ombudsman was not provided with any evidence to suggest that a manifest error was committed at the interview stage of the selection procedure in question.

The role of individual members of the Selection Committee

36. The Ombudsman noted that the complainant was of the view that the representative of the HR department and the representative from the Staff Committee, as members of the Selection Committee, did not fulfil their role during the interview, which was to ensure that the selection procedure was effected in a fair, transparent and objective manner and that all steps of the selection procedure were fulfilled with due diligence. The complainant's concerns in respect of the representative from the Staff Committee mainly related to the marks he was awarded for his answer to the question requiring him to evaluate his team-work abilities.

37. Despite having found certain flaws in the selection procedure in respect of the written test and the provision of information, the Ombudsman did not find any evidence to suggest that the interview stage of the selection procedure had not been conducted in a fair, transparent and objective manner or that it had not been effected with due diligence. As regards the grading of the complainant's answers, the Ombudsman referred to the conclusions made in paragraph 35 above.

The claim

38. The Ombudsman concluded that the complainant's claim would be dealt with in the context of the proposal for a friendly solution.

The friendly solution proposal

39. On the basis of the above analysis and findings, the Ombudsman made the following friendly solution proposal:

With respect to the recruitment procedure at hand:

(1) ECDC could ask the selection committee to reconsider to what extent candidates' written tests should be taken into account;

(2) ECDC could refrain from using a condition which was not communicated to candidates before the selection procedure, namely, the condition that candidates obtain a minimum score of 70% in order to be placed on the reserve list. Instead, ECDC could, taking due account of the reconsideration outlined in point (1) above, rank all candidates who took the written test and interview;

With respect to future recruitment procedures:

(3) ECDC could revise the information provided to candidates concerning the outcome of recruitment procedures;

(4) ECDC could ensure that candidates are always informed of changes in the recruitment procedure; and

(5) ECDC could explain in what way information about the minimum points required to be placed on a reserve list will be communicated to the public in future.

The arguments presented to the Ombudsman after his friendly solution proposal

40. In its reply to the Ombudsman's friendly solution proposal, ECDC acknowledged the Ombudsman's comments and proposal as regards the Selection Committee's mistake in disregarding the written test instead of considering to what extent it should have been taken into account on the basis of the formulation of the selection criteria. However, the reserve list in question expired on 31 December 2011 (one week after ECDC submitted its response to the friendly solution proposal). ECDC therefore considered that it would be redundant to reconsider the extent to which the written test should be taken into account for the purposes of the selection procedure. Nevertheless, it assured the Ombudsman that it will do its utmost to avoid such mistakes from occurring in the future.

41. ECDC noted that, since it came into existence in 2005, it was normal practice for it to place candidates who reach a minimum score of 70 % on its reserve lists. ECDC acknowledged, however, that the communication to candidates could be clearer in this regard.

42. ECDC welcomed the Ombudsman's constructive proposal in respect of future selection procedures. ECDC stated that it is confident that the issue of the minimum score that had to be obtained to be placed on the reserve list, as well as the Ombudsman's other remarks about future selection procedures, had been addressed in its revised "Internal Procedure on Recruitment and Selection of Temporary Agents and Contract Staff" which had been published on its website, and is thus available to all candidates.

43. The complainant did not submit any observations on ECDC's reply to the friendly solution proposal.

The Ombudsman's assessment after his friendly solution proposal

44. The Ombudsman notes and applauds ECDC's overall positive approach to his friendly solution proposal. As regards points (1) and (2) of the proposal, the Ombudsman welcomes ECDC's acknowledgement of the mistakes that occurred in the recruitment procedure at hand, as well as its commitment to avoid such mistakes from occurring in the future.

45. The Ombudsman also finds that, given the imminent expiry of the relevant reserve list, and assuming that no recruitment from the reserve list took place during the last week of December 2011, no practical purpose would have been served by reviewing the composition of, and ranking on, the reserve list at that stage. In those circumstances, it was reasonable for ECDC not to proceed to review the reserve list.

46. As regards points (3) to (5) of the friendly solution proposal, concerning future selection procedures, the Ombudsman notes and appreciates ECDC's intention to address these issues in its revised Internal Procedure on Recruitment.

47. In respect of the minimum points required for candidates to be placed on a reserve list, the Ombudsman acknowledges that this information is now included in the ECDC document entitled "Internal Procedure on Recruitment"[11], which is publicly available. The Ombudsman considers, however, that, in order to ensure that candidates in recruitment procedures are fully informed in this respect, it would be useful to add this information in the vacancy notices or, at least, explicitly to refer, in vacancy notices, to the Internal Procedure on Recruitment, and to include information on where this document can be found. The Ombudsman will make a further remark in this regard.

48. As regards the information provided to candidates concerning the outcome of recruitment procedures, ECDC appears to apply an appropriate policy which, however, failed in the recruitment procedure at hand (see paragraph 31 above). The Ombudsman considers that it would be useful for ECDC explicitly to set out its policy in this regard in the Internal Procedure on Recruitment. Since this does not appear to have been done, the Ombudsman will make another further remark in this regard.

49. The Ombudsman notes that the Internal Procedure on Recruitment[12] provides that, should the post concerned rely heavily on application of specific practical skills, the decision can be taken, on an exceptional basis, to allocate more weighting than normal to the written test. Again, the Ombudsman considers that it would be useful to specify, in the Internal Procedure on Recruitment, that candidates should be informed of any such decision, as well as of other decisions allowing the recruitment procedure to deviate from standard procedures. The Ombudsman will make a final further remark in this regard.

50. In conclusion, the Ombudsman appreciates ECDC's positive approach, as well as the steps it has taken to address, for the future, the problems discovered in respect of its recruitment procedures. The Ombudsman considers that ECDC has taken measures to eliminate, at least for the future, the problematic issues identified. The Ombudsman will therefore close the case with a finding that no further inquiries are justified.

51. ECDC should inform the Ombudsman of the action it will take in relation to his further remarks.

B. Conclusions

On the basis of his inquiry into this complaint, the Ombudsman closes it with the following conclusion and further remarks:

In light of ECDC's recognition of the errors that occurred, and its efforts thus far to resolve them, no further inquiries are justified.

The complainant and ECDC will be informed of this decision.

Further remarks

(1) If a minimum number of points is required for candidates to be placed on a reserve list, this information should be mentioned in the relevant vacancy notice.

(2) The weighting allocated to the different tests in a particular recruitment procedure should be mentioned in the relevant vacancy notice.

(3) Any decisions that allow the recruitment procedure to deviate from standard procedures should be mentioned in the relevant vacancy notice.

(4) ECDC should set out, in its vacancy notices, its policy on the information provided to candidates concerning the outcome of recruitment procedures.

(5) It could perhaps be useful to add in the "Internal Procedure on Recruitment" an article entitled 'Information to candidates', which sets out ECDC's policy and procedures in respect of points (1)-(4) above.

 

P. Nikiforos Diamandouros

Done in Strasbourg on 17 April 2012

---

[1] See, for example, case T-19/03 Konstantopoulou v Court of Justice [2004] ECR-SC I-A-25 and II-107, paragraph 43, case T-277/02 Pascall v Council [2004] ECR-SC I-A-137 and II-621, paragraph 57 and Order of the Court of First Instance in case T-74/91 Rocco Tancredi v European Parliament [1992] ECR II-1645, paragraph 19.

[2] See, for example, case T-371/03 Le Voci v Council [2005] ECR-SC I-A-209 and II-957, paragraph 50.

[3] See, for example, case T-132/89 Gallone v Council [1990] ECR II-549, paragraph 27.

[4] The essential function of a vacancy notice is to give those interested the most accurate information possible about the conditions of eligibility for the post in question, see, for example, case T-132/89 Gallone v Council, cited above, paragraph 27.

[5] See, for example, case T-19/03 Konstantopoulou v Court of Justice, cited above, paragraph 43 and case T-277/02 Pascall v Council, cited above, paragraph 57.

[6] See, for example, case T-53/00 Angioli v Commission [2003] ECR-SC I-A-13 and II-73, paragraph 91 and Order of the Court of First Instance in case T-74/91 Rocco Tancredi v European Parliament, cited above, paragraph 19.

[7] The Ombudsman noted that the complainant referred to an e-mail sent by ECDC on 6 July 2010, stating that there had been "an unforeseen delay in the process". According to the complainant, ECDC thus admitted that there was a delay. The Ombudsman considered, however, that the fact that the recruitment procedure might have taken longer than expected did not automatically mean that it had not been carried out in accordance with the principles of good administration.

[8] The Ombudsman noted, however, that, given that the recruitment procedure was for a contract agent, there was no obligation for ECDC to draw up a reserve list or even to recruit from that list in future. This reasoning was also reflected in the formulation of the vacancy notice which stated that "[t]he list may be used as a reserve for recruitment, should similar vacancies arise" (emphasis added by the Ombudsman).

[9] See, for example, case T-132/89 Gallone v Council, cited above, paragraph 27.

[10] See, for example, case T-19/03 Konstantopoulou v Court of Justice, cited above, paragraph 43, case T-277/02 Pascall v Council, cited above, paragraph 57 and Order of the Court of First Instance in case T-74/91 Rocco Tancredi v European Parliament, cited above, paragraph 19.

[11] Points 4.6 and 4.7 lay down that the maximum score is 100 for the interview and 20 for the written test. In order to be put on the reserve list, a candidate must have obtained at least 70 points in the interview and 10 points in the written test.

[12] In point 4.7.