Strasbourg, 11 December 2006

Dear Mr X,

On 26 September 2004, you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning your exclusion from Open Competition COM/LA/1/02.

On 17 November 2004, I forwarded the complaint to the Director of the European Personnel Selection Office ("EPSO"). EPSO sent its opinion on 24 February 2005. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 15 March 2005.

On 5 April 2005, I decided to conduct further inquiries, sending EPSO a letter containing a request for further comments. I informed you of these further inquiries on that same date. On 30 May 2005, EPSO replied to my letter of further inquires. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations. You sent your observations on 13 July 2005.

On 18 November 2005, I made a proposal for a friendly solution to one part of your complaint, and sent you a copy of my proposal on that same date.

On 24 January 2006, EPSO sent its reply to my proposal for a friendly solution. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations. You sent me your observations on 25 March 2006.

THE COMPLAINT

On 29 April 2003, the complainant participated in Open Competition COM/LA/1/02 (English-language translators) organised by the European Personnel Selection Office ("EPSO"). The competition required a "perfect command of English" (Point A.II.3 of the Notice of Competition).

In the test, which involved translation of a non-specialised text without a dictionary, the complainant obtained 0 out of 20 points. The complainant wrote to EPSO on 7 August 2003 requesting clarification. EPSO replied on 17 September 2003, confirming the Selection Board's assessment. EPSO also enclosed a copy of the complainant's translation test and a copy of the Board's evaluation sheet. The evaluation sheet contained seven boxes that could be ticked to indicate that specific types of error had been made (sense, omission, grammar, lexis, spelling, punctuation, clarity). The boxes concerning sense, omission, grammar, lexis, and punctuation had been ticked. By contrast, the Board had not ticked the boxes concerning spelling and clarity.

In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant noted that the copy of his translation test contained no corrections.

The complainant furthermore noted that he had heard that preference was given to candidates from the accession countries.

The complainant made the following allegations:

1. that it was wrong for the Selection Board to give him 0 points when at the same time two of the boxes on the evaluation sheet had not been ticked.
2. that he was not given sufficient or clear information as to how the marking had been conducted.
3. that there was discrimination in the form of preference given to candidates from the accession countries.

The complainant claimed that he should receive clarification in respect of the above.

The complainant did not appear to have contacted EPSO in respect of the third allegation. The Ombudsman therefore informed him that this allegation was inadmissible for lack of prior administrative approaches (Article 2(4) of the European Ombudsman's Statute(1)).

THE INQUIRY

EPSO's opinion

In its opinion, EPSO made, in summary, the following comments.

1. In view of the complainant's remarks, the following explanation of the marking procedure should be noted:

In competitions like the one here concerned each test is marked anonymously by at least two markers. In order to be able to assess the quality of translations, the Selection Board had, in this case, laid down certain marking criteria in advance, including a list of possible errors: errors of sense, omission, grammar, lexis, spelling, punctuation and clarity.

After checking that these criteria had been applied correctly by the markers and after examining their comments and observations, the Selection Board had established the results. The opinion of the whole Board appears on the evaluation sheet.

Emphasis should be laid on the importance of establishing criteria which are applied uniformly when each test is marked. This allows the Selection Board to compare the performance of all the candidates fairly and consistently.

In the present case, a certain number of points had been deducted for each error, varying according to the seriousness of the error.

The errors found in the complainant's translation had been indicated on the evaluation sheet by marking ticks in the appropriate boxes. A tick in one of these boxes meant that at least one error of this type was found in the test, but marks were lost for each error of the same type. The complainant's translation contained several errors of the same type, for each category of error found (in other words, several errors of sense, omission, grammar, lexis and punctuation), which had led to the deduction of the maximum number of points theoretically possible, resulting in the final mark. Contrary to the complainant's arguments, the complainant's translation test had not merited a higher mark than 0 out of 20 points just because not all the boxes had been ticked.

The complainant's own assessment - or that of someone outside the Selection Board - and his belief in the quality of his own test cannot replace the objective evaluation of the Board, which alone is competent to determine whether a candidate may be admitted to the next stage of a competition, after a comparative examination which, once again, only the Board can carry out.

2. With regard to the complainant's remark that the copy of his translation test contained no corrections, the members of the Selection Board do not annotate examination scripts. The Board may ask markers to act as examiners, in line with the relevant provisions of the Staff Regulations (third paragraph of Article 3 of Annex III). The Court of First Instance has already had occasion to make rulings on the way in which a Board should mark tests, and has indicated that it is not necessary for corrections to be shown on the original scripts. Corrections should be made in such a way as not to affect subsequent evaluations by another marker(2).

The complainant's observations

In his observations, the complainant maintained his allegations, on which he elaborated. He also stated that he considered the marking to have been erroneous.

Further inquiries

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

The Ombudsman's further inquiries

The Ombudsman requested EPSO to comment on the following points made by the complainant in relation to his second allegation:

1. the information contained on the evaluation sheet was insufficient; and
2. the boxes on the evaluation sheet indicating types of error did not correspond to the content of the exam.

EPSO was furthermore requested to address the complainant's allegation that the marking of his test was wrong in substance. The complainant had, in this respect, requested that his translation should be independently reassessed.

EPSO's opinion

In its opinion, EPSO made, in summary, the following comments:

A key point is that sufficient grounds must be given for the decisions taken by the Selection Board to enable candidates to understand why the Board has taken a particular decision. The Court has consistently held that, in decisions taken by Boards with regard to assessing tests, the mark awarded in itself constitutes sufficient grounds for the Board's assessment and that the Board is in no way bound to explain why a candidate's performance was insufficient.

In accordance with the undertaking given to the Ombudsman, candidates who request additional information regarding the assessment of their written tests should be given information in the form of an evaluation sheet. Hence the information provided on the sheet sent to the complainant, enabling him to identify the types of error committed in his translation test.

Regarding the content of the evaluation sheet, it is worth pointing out that the test to be assessed concerned a translation and that, in such a case, it is normal, for marking purposes, to identify a list of possible errors, such as the ones used on the evaluation sheet, for which marks were deducted.

However, there is a difference between being informed of the reasons for failing a test and seeking to discuss the marking in such a way as to replace the Selection Board in exercising its wide powers of discretion as recognised by the Court's case-law.

Once the Selection Board has identified the shortcomings in the written test, the fact that the candidate disagrees with the errors found does not place the Board under an obligation to justify every aspect of its decision. It can therefore not be called upon to provide every candidate, on request, with more detailed reasons for its evaluation by spelling out, for example, where a candidate has committed an error of sense or grammar (in the case of a translation test, as in the present complaint).

The Selection Board's task is to identify the best candidates, as provided for in the Staff Regulations, and not to enter into a discussion with candidates on the reasons for its decisions.

With regard to an independent reassessment of the complainant's translation, this would not be possible in the present case without reassessing the translations submitted by all the candidates, given that the assessment was comparative. Reassessing only the complainant's translation would imply a breach of the principle of non-discrimination vis-à-vis the other candidates.

The complainant's observations

In his observations on EPSO's opinion, the complainant maintained his allegations and claim.

THE OMBUDSMAN'S EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE A FRIENDLY SOLUTION

After careful consideration of the opinions and observations, the Ombudsman was not satisfied that EPSO had responded adequately to the complainant's allegation concerning access to information.

The proposal for a friendly solution

Article 3(5) of the Statute of the Ombudsman(3) directs the Ombudsman to seek, as far as possible, a friendly solution with the institution concerned to eliminate the instance of maladministration and satisfy the complainant. The Ombudsman considered that the evaluation sheet given to the complainant in the present case could not be considered to provide the complainant with information that was sufficiently clear and detailed in the sense expressed in the Ombudsman's special report of 18 October 1999 to the European Parliament, which was accepted by the Commission that year (see below). The Ombudsman's provisional conclusion concerning the present case, therefore, was that this could constitute an instance of maladministration. He therefore made the following proposal for a friendly solution:

EPSO could give the complainant information that would sufficiently indicate the seriousness and the extent of the separate types of error pointed out on the evaluation sheet.

The Ombudsman's proposal was made on the basis of the following considerations:

1. The complainant alleged that he had not been given sufficient or clear information as to how the marking had been conducted.

2. In its opinion, EPSO gave an account of various aspects of the Selection Board's marking methods.

3. In light of EPSO's opinion and the complainant's observations, in which he maintained his allegation, the Ombudsman decided to conduct further inquiries. The Ombudsman asked EPSO to comment on, amongst other things, the complainant's view that the information contained on the evaluation sheet was insufficient.

4. In its opinion, EPSO stated that, in accordance with the undertaking given to the Ombudsman, it had been agreed that candidates who request additional information regarding the assessment of their written tests should be given such information in the form of an evaluation sheet. Hence the information provided on the sheet sent to the candidate enabling him to identify the types of error committed in his translation test. Regarding the content of the evaluation sheet, the test to be assessed concerned a translation and, in such a case, it was normal, for marking purposes, to identify a list of possible errors, such as the ones used on the evaluation sheet, for which marks were deducted. However, there is a difference between being informed of the reasons for failing a test and seeking to discuss the marking in such a way as to replace the Selection Board in exercising its wide powers of discretion as recognised by the Court's case-law. Once the Board has identified the shortcomings in the written test, the fact that the candidate disagrees with the errors found does not put the Board under an obligation to justify every aspect of its decision. It can therefore not be called on to provide every candidate, on request, with more detailed reasons for its evaluation by spelling out, for example, where a candidate has committed an error of sense or grammar (in the case of a translation test, as in the present complaint).

5. In his proposal for a friendly solution, the Ombudsman first noted that the account given by EPSO of the various aspects of the Selection Board's marking methods did not include information on the evaluation criteria relevant to the assessment of the candidate's performance on the basis of the seriousness and the extent of the types of error indicated on the evaluation sheet. The Ombudsman pointed out that he launched an own-initiative inquiry on 10 October 2005, OI/5/05/PB, into the issue of access to the evaluation criteria established by the Boards for written examinations. To the extent that the complainant's first allegation could be interpreted as involving this issue also, the Ombudsman considered that, in light of his on-going own-initiative inquiry here referred to, there were no grounds for making further inquiries into this issue in the present case(4).

6. With regard to the information contained on the evaluation sheet, the Ombudsman observed that the undertaking referred to by EPSO was made following the Ombudsman's special report of 1999. The report followed the Ombudsman's own-initiative inquiry into the secrecy that formed part of the Commission's recruitment procedure(5). The special report included, among others, a formal recommendation that, in future recruitment competitions, the Commission should give candidates access to their own marked examination papers on request. This recommendation was based on the following considerations:

"...being able to inspect his own marked examination script does entail several benefits for the candidate. First, the candidate gains the opportunity to discover his mistakes and thus to improve his future performance. Second, the candidate’s confidence in the administration is strengthened. This is important, since there seems to be a widespread belief that tests are not always properly assessed by the Commission and indeed that sometimes they are not assessed at all. Third, if a candidate feels that he has been wrongly assessed, he will be able to argue much more precisely if he has seen his marked examination script." (p. 5 of the Ombudsman's special report.)

7. In a letter dated 7 December 1999, the Commission's former President, Mr Romano Prodi, accepted the Ombudsman's recommendation that candidates should have access to their marked examination papers. In his letter to the Ombudsman, he stated the following:

"The Commission welcomes the recommendations you made in this report and will propose the necessary legal and organisational arrangements to give candidates access to their own marked examination papers, upon request, from 1 July 2000 onwards."(6)

8. The Ombudsman considered that providing candidates with a copy of the Selection Board's final evaluation sheet could be an adequate indication of the Board's assessment regarding the errors and weaknesses it identified in a candidate's examination paper. The adequacy of the information provided in the evaluation sheet is to be appraised in view of the purpose of providing a candidate with a copy of his marked examination paper, set out in the Ombudsman's special report referred to above. Hence, the evaluation sheet must provide the candidate concerned with sufficiently clear and detailed information in light of those purposes. This requirement implies that, where the evaluation sheet concerns a translation test, it must provide information not only on each of the types of error, but also on the seriousness and the extent of the errors or weaknesses found in the candidate's paper, without, however, imposing an unreasonable administrative burden on Boards. In light of the above, the Ombudsman also pointed out that, in view of the wide margin of discretion that the Board enjoys when it evaluates the performance of candidates in tests, the Board is under no legal obligation, or any obligation deriving from principles of good administration, to provide candidates with a detailed opinion on the specific errors identified by the Board. In a case like the present one, the information to be given could consist of sufficient indications as to how many errors had been found for the individual types of error identified, and as to whether serious or only minor errors had been made. Such information would be particularly useful to candidates who did not obtain a pass mark, as such candidates will often wish to know in which respects they should seek to improve their performance in future competitions.

9. In light of the above, the Ombudsman considered that the evaluation sheet given to the complainant in the present case could not be considered to provide the complainant with information that was sufficiently clear and detailed in the sense expressed in the Ombudsman's special report of 1999, which was accepted by the Commission that year. The Ombudsman's provisional conclusion was that this could constitute an instance of maladministration, and the above-cited proposal for a friendly solution was therefore made.

EPSO's reply to the Ombudsman's proposal for a friendly solution

In its reply to the Ombudsman's proposal for a friendly solution, EPSO made, in summary, the following remarks:

To understand the manner in which the translation concerned was marked, it is useful to bear in mind that errors identified in translation tests were penalised according to their seriousness.

Each test was marked by at least two markers, each of whom identified translation errors and evaluated the quality of the translation.

The following marking method was applied: Each test contained a maximum of 40 points. A certain number of points were deducted from this maximum, depending on the type of error made. One point (out of 40) was deducted for punctuation errors, whereas errors of meaning, omission, grammar, vocabulary and clarity were penalised according to their seriousness, that is, a one-point deduction for errors which did not affect the overall comprehension of the text and a three-point deduction for errors which seriously affected the meaning or clarity of the text.

For each test, the Selection Board was informed of each marker's assessment (which might vary slightly from person to person) and decided whether it was appropriate to proceed to a third marking before establishing the final mark in the test.

Having noted the markers' assessments, the Selection Board established the final mark, which was then divided by two to obtain a mark out of 20, as required by the Notice of Competition.

In the case of the complainant in the present case, the Selection Board noted a total of 40 penalty points in each marking, giving a mark of 0 out of 40 in the test.

The final evaluation by the Selection Board consisted solely in establishing the overall mark out of 20, as required by the Notice of Competition. To enable candidates to identify their weak points, the Board subsequently indicates on the evaluation sheet the categories of errors committed but not the number of mistakes in each category, as the final mark is decisive in the context of a competition. As EPSO has already pointed out, the complainant obtained 0 out of 20, and the categories of errors were also indicated on the evaluation sheet by means of ticks in the relevant boxes.

However, EPSO would stress that the above information on the working methods of the Selection Board concerns only the competition in question. Since each Board is independent, the Board in another translation competition may well adopt different working methods. Boards are free to define both the nature and the weighting of various translation errors, albeit within the limits of the framework and objectives of the competition.

To enable candidates to improve their performance in any future competitions, EPSO considers that only an indication of the categories of errors committed, as opposed to the number of points deducted according to the seriousness of the error, is of use to candidates, since this highlights the weaknesses in their translations. Consequently, EPSO considers that the evaluation sheet drawn up in the context of the translation competition in question provides sufficiently detailed indications to enable candidates to understand the decision of the Selection Board.

The complainant's observations

In his observations on EPSO's reply, the complainant maintained his complaint.

THE DECISION

1 The issue of 0 points without all error-boxes being ticked

1.1 On 29 April 2003, the complainant participated in Open Competition COM/LA/1/02 (English-language translators) organised by the European Personnel Selection Office ("EPSO"). The competition required a "perfect command of English" (Point A.II.3 of the Notice of Competition). In the test for translation test without a dictionary, of a non-specialised text, the complainant obtained 0 out of 20 points. The complainant wrote to EPSO, on 7 August 2003, requesting clarification. EPSO replied, on 17 September 2003, confirming the assessment made by the Selection Board. EPSO also enclosed a copy of the complainant's translation test and a copy of the Board's evaluation sheet. The evaluation sheet contained seven boxes that could be ticked to indicate that specific types of error had been made (sense, omission, grammar, lexis, spelling, punctuation, clarity). The boxes concerning sense, omission, grammar, lexis, and punctuation had been ticked. By contrast, the Board had not ticked the boxes concerning spelling and clarity. In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant noted that the copy of his translation test contained no corrections. The complainant alleged that it was wrong for the Board to give him 0 points when at the same time two of the boxes on the evaluation sheet had not been ticked.

1.2 In its opinion, EPSO explained that, in the present case, a certain number of points had been deducted for each error, and that the number of points deleted varied depending on the seriousness of the error. The errors found in the complainant's translation had been indicated on the evaluation sheet by marking ticks in the appropriate boxes. A tick in one of these boxes indicated that at least one error of this type had been found in the test, but that additional marks had been taken away for each error of the same type. The complainant's translation contained several errors of the same type, in each category of error (in other words, several errors of sense, omission, grammar, lexis and punctuation). This had led to the deduction of the maximum number of points, resulting in the final mark. Contrary to the complainant's arguments, the complainant's translation test had not merited a higher mark than 0 just because not all the boxes had been ticked.

1.3 In his observations, the complainant maintained his allegation.

1.4 The Ombudsman notes that the assessments that a Selection Board makes in a competition, when it evaluates the knowledge and abilities of candidates, and also the decisions it gives as to whether a candidate has failed a test, constitute the expression of a value judgment. They fall within the wide discretion enjoyed by the Board and they are amenable to review by the Ombudsman only where there has been a manifest breach of the rules governing the Board’s work(7).

1.5 In making his allegation here concerned, the complainant appeared to consider that the Selection Board could not have awarded him 0 points when two of the error-boxes on the evaluation sheet had not been ticked. In its opinion, EPSO has given an account of its marking methods, essentially explaining that the number of possible points for deduction (20) was not proportionally divided according to the number of types of error. That is to say, the maximum number of possible points for deduction could be arrived at as a result of only a few types of error.

1.6 In light of the above, the Ombudsman considers that EPSO has provided an adequate explanation in respect of the complainant's first allegation, and that there are no indications that the Selection Board acted beyond the limits of its wide discretion in carrying out its assessment of the candidate's performance. There has therefore been no maladministration regarding this aspect of the case.

2 Lack of sufficient or clear information

2.1 The complainant alleged that he was not given sufficient or clear information as to how the marking was conducted.

2.2 In its opinion, EPSO gave an account of various aspects of the Selection Board's marking methods (see point 1.2 above).

2.3 In light of EPSO's opinion and the complainant's observations, in which he maintained his allegation, the Ombudsman decided to conduct further inquiries. The Ombudsman asked EPSO to comment on the complainant's view, stated in relation to his allegation here concerned, (i) that the information contained on the evaluation sheet was insufficient; and (ii) that the boxes on the evaluation sheet indicating types of error did not correspond to the content of the exam.

2.4 With regard to point (i), the facts and positions are summarised above under "The Ombudsman's efforts to achieve a friendly solution". As noted, the Ombudsman made the following proposal:

EPSO could give the complainant information that would sufficiently indicate the seriousness and the extent of the separate types of error pointed out on the evaluation sheet.

2.5 The Ombudsman notes that EPSO has rejected the Ombudsman's proposal for a friendly solution as it has refrained from providing any information on the seriousness and theextent of the separate types of error pointed out on the evaluation sheet in the present case. EPSO considers that it should only give information on the types of errors. This reflects EPSO's position in a number of other recent cases, for instance 674/2004/PB (decided on 7 July 2006), in which EPSO emphasised that it is not, in its view, the Selection Board's responsibility to indicate the gravity and importance of the different types of errors identified during the correction of the paper concerned(8). As in those other cases, the Ombudsman does not consider that EPSO has, in the present case, provided any valid reasons for refusing to provide information on the seriousness and the extent of the separate types of errors pointed out on the evaluation sheet. The Ombudsman therefore maintains his finding of maladministration regarding this part of the case. In light of EPSO's position in both the present and the above-mentioned cases, there is not, however, any reasonable prospect that EPSO would accept a draft recommendation on that same issue in the present case. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case with a critical remark, below. However, t he Ombudsman will also consider whether the issue here concerned could usefully be included in his own-initiative inquiry on access to the evaluation criteria established by Boards for written examinations (OI/5/2005/PB). The Ombudsman might also consider whether it would be relevant to open a separate own-initiative inquiry.

2.6 With regard to point (2) referred to above, that is, the complainant's view that the boxes on the evaluation sheet indicating types of error did not correspond to the content of the exam, the complainant appears essentially to consider that the Selection Board had breached the Notice of Competition by using irrelevant evaluation criteria.

2.7 The test at issue concerned a translation into English without a dictionary of a non-specialised text (Part B.1.b of the Notice of Competition), which was intended to ascertain whether the complainant had a perfect command of English (Part A.II.3.a). In this respect, the Ombudsman's review is limited to the question of whether the marking on the basis of the types of error indicated on the evaluation sheet was consonant with the above-mentioned purpose(9).

2.8 In light of the above, the Ombudsman takes the view that the Selection Board's marking on the basis of the types of error (sense, omission, grammar, lexis, spelling, punctuation, clarity), set out on the evaluation sheet, was consonant with the purpose of the test of the competition here concerned. There has accordingly been no maladministration regarding this aspect of the complaint.

3 The alleged wrong marking and request for independent reassessment

3.1 The complainant alleged that the marking of his test was wrong in substance. The complainant had, in this respect, requested that his translation should be independently reassessed.

3.2 It appeared from EPSO's opinions that it maintained its view, communicated to the complainant in its letter to him of 17 September 2003, that the marking of his test had been correct. EPSO also pointed out that the assessment made in this case was comparative, and that reassessing the complainant's translation would involve a reassessment of all translations.

3.3 The complainant maintained his position.

3.4 In view of the scope of his review, referred to in point 1.4 above, the Ombudsman's examination is limited to the question of whether there has been a manifest breach of the rules governing the Selection Board’s work.

3.5 The Ombudsman has thoroughly examined the documents submitted to him in the course of the present inquiry, including the text to be translated and the complainant's translation. On the basis of that examination, the Ombudsman does not consider that there are any indications that the Selection Board committed a manifest breach of the rules governing its work. The complainant's allegation has therefore not been substantiated, and no maladministration has therefore occurred in respect of this aspect of the case. It follows from this that it is not necessary to examine the complainant's claim for a reassessment of his test.

4 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, it is necessary to make the following critical remark:

The Ombudsman considers, as stated in his decision on complaint 674/2004/(MF)PB, that "[p]roviding candidates with a copy of the Selection Board's final evaluation sheet can be an adequate indication of the Board's assessment regarding the errors and weaknesses it identified in a candidate's examination paper. The adequacy of the information provided in the evaluation sheet is to be appraised in view of the purpose of providing a candidate with a copy of his or her marked examination paper, as indicated in the Ombudsman's special report of 18 October 1999 to the European Parliament, which was accepted by the European Commission on 7 December 1999. Hence, the evaluation sheet should provide the candidate concerned with sufficiently clear and detailed information in light of those purposes. This requirement implies that, where the evaluation sheet concerns a translation test, it must provide information not only on the types, but also on the seriousness and the extent of the errors or weaknesses identified by the Board in the candidates' paper, without, however, imposing an unreasonable administrative burden on Boards ." In the present case, the evaluation sheet concerning the complainant's translation test did not contain any information on the seriousness and the extent of the errors or weaknesses identified by the Board in the candidates' translation test. Moreover, EPSO also failed to provide such information in its opinion on the Ombudsman's proposal for a friendly solution. This was an instance of maladministration.

For the reasons stated in point 2.5 above, the Ombudsman closes the case with the above critical remark.

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

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) "A complaint shall be made within two years of the date on which the facts on which it is based came to the attention of the person lodging the complaint and must be preceded by the appropriate administrative approaches to the institutions and bodies concerned."

(2) Case T-19/03 Konstantinopoulou v Court of Justice, judgment of 19 February 2004, not yet reported, paragraph 61.

(3) Decision 94/262 of 9 March 1994 of the European Parliament on the Regulations and General Conditions Governing the Performance of the Ombudsman’s Duties, OJ 1994 L 113, p. 15.

(4) Information on the outcome of the Ombudsman's own-initiative inquiry will be published on the Ombudsman's website (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu).

(5) Special report of the European Ombudsman to the European Parliament following the own-initiative inquiry into the secrecy which forms part of the Commission's recruitment procedure (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/special/en/default.htm).

(6) Cf. press release no. 16/99 of the European Ombudsman of 15 December 1999.

(7) Cf. case T-371/03 Le Voci v Council, judgment of 14 July 2005, not yet reported, paragraph 102 (concerning the scope of review by the Community Courts).

(8) Cf. also 1953/2003/(ADB)PB (decided 9 August 2006).

(9) Cf. Case T-371/03 Le Voci v Council, judgment of 14 July 2005, not yet reported, paragraph 41 (concerning the scope of review by the Community Courts).