Dear Mr S.,
On 5 March 1997, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission regarding competition COM/D/577 which aimed to set up a reserve list for chauffeurs.
On 9 April 1997, you sent a letter to the Ombudsman in order to clarify the exact nature of your complaint.
On 30 June 1997, I forwarded your complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 8 September 1997 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. On 28 October 1997, I received your observations on the Commission's opinion.
On the basis of your observations, I decided to pursue my inquiry into your complaint and on 19 March 1998, I asked the Commission for a second opinion.
On 12 May 1998, I received the Commission's second opinion which I transmitted to you. I received your observations on 26 June 1998.
I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant is a Belgian citizen who attended competition COM/D/577 organized by the European Commission in 1988. He was successful in the competition and his name figured on the reserve list for a possible permanent position at the Commission. The validity of the reserve list, originally foreseen until 31 December 1988, was prolonged each year until 31 December 1996.
The complainant made two main claims: first he was not informed about the prolongation of the reserve list at the end of 1996 and second, he was discriminated vis-à-vis other candidates, mainly from the new Member States. The complainant stressed that he was on the reserve list for nine years and that he was never called for a permanent post at the Commission.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's first opinion
As regards the complainant's first claim, the Commission pointed out that the reserve list had been prolonged each year from 31 December 1988 until 31 December 1996 and that the complainant was each time informed about it. When the Commission decided not to prolong the list beyond 31 December 1996, there were no grounds to inform the complainant any more.
As regards the complainant's second claim, the Commission mentioned that the successful candidates from the competition were classified on the reserve list in alphabetical order and without any consideration with regard to merit. It also recalled that the fact of being on a reserve list does not confer on the person an entitlement to be recruited. The recruitment takes place in accordance with the service's needs.
The complainant's observations
The complainant criticised the Commission's statement that the successful candidates from the competition were classified in alphabetical order and without any consideration with regard to merit. He pointed out that this way to proceed was arbitrary.
He also mentioned that two persons had been recruited as chauffeurs at the Commission even though these persons were successful in a competition organized by another Institution for another qualification.
Further to the complainant's allegations, the Ombudsman decided to pursue his inquiry. He asked the Commission to clarify its selection criteria vis-à-vis the candidates from a reserve list.

FURTHER INQUIRIES

The Commission's second opinion
The Commission first stated that the classification according to alphabetical order in a reserve list was not a selection criteria. It pointed out that alphabetical order aimed to guarantee that recruitment was made only according to the service's needs.
The Institution emphasised that its recruitment procedure was made according to Article 27 of the Staff Regulations which specifies that:

"Recruitment shall be directed to securing for the institution the services of officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity, recruited on the broadest possible geographical basis from among nationals of Member States of the Communities.

Officials shall be selected without reference to race, creed or sex.

No posts shall be reserved for nationals of any specific Member State.

As an exception to Article 27 (3), the Commission mentioned Regulation 626/95 which concerns recruitment of nationals from new Member States.
The complainant's observations
The complainant maintained his complaint to the Ombudsman.

THE DECISION

1. The lack of information about the prolongation of the reserve list
1.1. The complainant alleged that he was not informed about the prolongation of the reserve list beyond December 1996. The Commission replied that the complainant was not informed about it because it decided to end the validity of the list in December 1996.
1.2. On the basis of the information provided by the Commission, the Ombudsman estimates that there is no need to pursue further his inquiry with regard to this aspect of the complaint.
2. The allegations of discrimination vis-à-vis the other candidates
2.1. The complainant was on a reserve list for nine years and he alleged that he was discriminated against with regard to other candidates who were recruited. The Commission replied that the fact of being on a reserve list does not confer on the person an entitlement to be recruited. The Commission also refered to Article 27 of the Staff Regulations as a guideline in its recruitment procedure as well as Regulation 626/95 which introduces special and temporary measures applicable to the recruitment of nationals from the new Member States.
2.2. The Ombudsman examined the arguments put forward by both the complainant and the Commission. He has not found any elements at hand indicating that the Commission committed discrimination or acted arbitrarily towards the complainant. There does not seem therefore to be any maladministration by the Commission with regard to this aspect of the complaint.
On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Commission. The Ombudsman has therefore decided to close the case.
Yours sincerely,
Jacob SÖDERMAN
cc:
Mr J. SANTER, President of the European Commission
Mr J-C EECKHOUT, Director, General Secretariat of the Commission