Dear Mr X.,

On 27 February 2002, you lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman against the European Parliament. Your complaint concerned the decision of the Selection Board of competition PE/19/D (Removal staff/Store hands, English speaking) not to admit you to the tests of the competition on the grounds that you did not have the necessary experience in the relevant area of activity.

On 25 March 2002, I sent your complaint to the President of the European Parliament with a request for comments by 30 June 2002. On 12 April 2002, you submitted additional information concerning your complaint which I forwarded to the President of the European Parliament on 18 April 2002. On 10 June 2002, the European Parliament sent its opinion, which I forwarded to you on 18 June 2002, with an invitation to make observations. You sent me your observations on the European Parliament's opinion on 27 July 2002.

I am now writing to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the facts were as follows:

On 27 May 2001, the complainant submitted his application to open competition PE/19/D for the selection of English Speaking removal staff/store hands. The Selection Board informed him by letter of 22 October 2001 that he could not be admitted to the competition since his relevant professional experience was not sufficient. Although the complainant requested the reconsideration of this decision by letter of 16 November 2001, the Selection Board confirmed its previous stand on the grounds that the complainant had not provided evidence of a professional experience of at least two years in the area of supervision, establishment and management of stocks.

The complainant alleged that for more than seven years he had worked for an airline company. In his first contract concluded in 1994, his post had been qualified as "worker", whereas from 1 November 1997, his job title was that of a "loader" on the basis of the new tasks assigned to him. Even though his work contract was unclear as to the nature of the functions he had to carry out, he had spelled out these tasks in point 12 of his application form in which he had written: shift leader (ground personnel), including: loading and unloading airplanes; transportation of luggage; driver all engines.

In his view, it was clear that the tasks assigned to him did not imply simply the shifting of suitcases, but also the follow-up of the whole process, including computerized baggage-handling management. This activity was thus comparable to the management of stocks referred to in the notice of competition.

The complainant considered therefore that the decision of the Selection Board to exclude him from open-competition PE/19/D due to his insufficient professional experience was unfounded. In summary, he claimed that the Selection Board should reconsider its decision to exclude him from the competition.

THE INQUIRY

The European Parliament's opinion

The Parliament's opinion dated 10 June 2002 began by setting the background of the case. It explained that the complainant had applied to open-competition PE/19/D for the selection of English-speaking removal staff. By letter of 22 October 2001, the Selection Board informed the complainant that his application had been rejected since he did not have the two-year experience in the area of supervision, establishment and management of stocks as required by point III.B.2.(b) of the notice. This provision established that details of the occupational experience had to be described in the application form, and backed up by supporting documents. The Parliament stressed that, as set out in the notice, the Selection Board could only base its decision on the information provided by the complainant with his application form.

In his application form, the complainant had referred to his relevant occupational experience which included the tasks of shift leader (ground personnel), loading and unloading airplanes; transportation of luggage; and the driving of engines. In support of his statements, he had enclosed copies of two contracts. Nevertheless, these documents did not describe the tasks performed by the complainant, but only his work title. The Selection Board did not find evidence of the complainant's professional experience in the documents submitted. The complainant himself had recognized this fact in his letter to the Selection Board of 16 November 2001. The Parliament pointed out that the statements made by the complainant in his application form were not sufficiently clear to allow the Selection Board to assess the nature of his professional experience.

The notice unmistakably required that statements regarding professional experience be backed by supportive evidence. In the absence of any such proof, the Selection Board could not follow any other course of action, but to reject the complainant's application.

The complainant's observations

In his observations dated 27 July 2002, the complainant pointed out that his firm was going through a difficult bankruptcy situation just before applications for the competition were due. As a result, he had been unable to obtain additional information on the tasks he had undertaken. In view of the situation, the complainant believed that the Selection Board should have taken into account the explanations put forward in his appeal of 16 November 2001.

The complainant added that the documentation he had submitted showed a progression in the tasks he had been charged with, from worker in 1994 to loader in 1997 and driver-loader in 2000.

THE DECISION

1. Non-admission of the complainant to open-competition PE/19/D

1.1 The complainant claimed that the decision of the Selection Board to exclude him from open-competition PE/19/D due to his insufficient professional experience was unfounded, and the Selection Board should therefore reconsider its decision. Even though his work contract was unclear as to the functions to be performed, he stressed he had spelled out the relevant tasks in his application form. He added that he had been unable to obtain further information from his former employer as a result of the firm's liquidation process.

1.2 The European Parliament stated that the notice of competition required that statements regarding professional experience be backed by supporting evidence. The two contracts submitted by the complainant in support of his statements did not describe the tasks he had performed, but only his work title. The Parliament considered that, in the absence of any supporting evidence, the Selection Board acted properly by not admitting the complainant to the competition.

1.3 As Community courts have held, the Selection Board enjoys a wide margin of discretion in assessing both the length and the nature of the prior professional experience of candidates, which can only be reviewed to ascertain whether its exercise has been vitiated by a manifest error. In carrying out such an assessment, the Selection Board is bound by the wording of the competition's notice(1).

1.4 Point III.B.2.(B) of the notice for competition PE/19/D referred to the occupational experience of candidates. It required at least two years of work in the area of supervision, establishment and management of stocks, adding that,

"Details of occupational experience should be given in Section 12 of the application form. Any statements must also be backed up by supporting documents (see point IV:3)"

Point IV.3 of the notice concerns admission to the competition. It indicates that the Selection Board will examine the applications and draw up a list of candidates who fulfill the conditions laid down in section III.B. In that task,

"It will base its decision solely on the information given on the application form and backed up by supporting documents."

1.5 The Ombudsman notes that the competition's Selection Board, having reviewed the different work contracts submitted by the complainant, concluded that they did not contain information proving that the candidate fulfilled the occupational experience required in the notice.

From the information available to the Ombudsman, it appears that there is no evidence that the Selection Board exceeded its powers when assessing the complainant's application or that it acted in breach of the competition's notice when deciding that he did not meet the conditions for admission. The Ombudsman therefore finds no instance of maladministration as regards this aspect of the case.

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,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN

---

(1) Case T-214/99, Manuel Tomás Carrasco Benítez v Commission of the European Communities [2000], ECR-SC page IA-00257, II-01169, paragraphs 69-71.