Dear Mrs C.,
On 1 September 1998 you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the marking of written tests within Open Competition EUR/LA/121, an error in the Notice of Competition and a lack of information.
On 1 October 1998, I forwarded the complaint to the Secretary General of the Council. The Council sent its opinion on 26 October 1998 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. You did not send any observations.
I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.
I apologise for the length of time it has taken to deal with your complaint.

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant had not been admitted to the oral test of Open Competition EUR/LA/121 on grounds that she had obtained 10.50/20 in written test N° 3. The minimum requirement was 12/20. The complainant alleged that the Notice of Competition indicates that a candidate has to obtain 60 % out of the highest mark for each written test. The complainant requested for a review of her exam. She asked the Council to indicate the highest mark obtained by another candidate and if it was lower than 17.5/20 she would in fact have the 60 % of the highest mark. The Council replied by explaining that there had been an error in the Notice and that the text should have read "maximum mark" and that the French version which is the official version states "note maximale" and the German version "Höchstpunktzahl". The complainant wrote again to the Council explaining that the Notice did not mention that the French version was the official version.

THE INQUIRY

The Council's opinion
On 13 July 1998, the complainant was informed that she had not been admitted to the oral test because she had not obtained the required minimum score for written test N° 3. By fax of 16 July 1998, the complainant asked to be informed of the highest mark obtained in test N° 3. If it was less than 17.5/20, she requested the Selection Board to continue considering her application.
On 16 July 1998, the Council's administration sent a letter quoting the French and German translations and apologising for any confusion or ambiguity this error in the English version of the Notice may have caused. In the reply of 20 July 1998 the complainant gave her interpretation of the situation as regards the different language versions of the Notice of Competition. By letter of 3 August 1998, the Selection Board gave a detailed explanation on the correction procedure and rejected the complainant's interpretation on point VI (a) 4 of the Notice. On 13 August 1998, the complainant claimed that the answers given by the Selection Board did not correspond to what she actually had asked. The Selection Board replied on 16 September 1998 and explained the Board's interpretation.
As regards the interpretation of point VI(a) 4 of the Notice, the figure of 60 % refers to 60 % of the highest obtainable mark, rather than the highest mark actually obtained. No element in this paragraph indicates that the highest mark refers to the highest mark achieved by another candidate.
In addition, the paragraph in question has to be read in the context of the whole of chapter VI (a) where the highest mark, i.e. reference mark 100 %, for each of the written test is laid down. After careful reading, no syntactical indication or teleological reference can be found to support the complainant's interpretation.
The complainant has not made any observations on the Council's opinion.

THE DECISION

1 Marking of the written tests within Open Competition EUR/LA/121 and an error in the Notice of Competition
1.1 The complainant alleges that the Council has not followed the Notice of Competition as regards the marking of the written tests. According to the complainant, the Notice provides that "to be admitted to oral tests, the candidate must obtain at least 60 % of the highest mark for each written test". The complainant alleges that this means 60 % of the highest mark obtained by another candidate.
1.2 As regards the interpretation of point VI(a) 4 of the Notice, the Council explained that the figure of 60 % refers to 60 % of the highest obtainable mark, i.e 100 %. No element in that paragraph indicates that the highest mark refers to the highest mark obtained by another candidate. In addition, the paragraph in question has to be read in the context of the whole of chapter VI (a) where the highest mark for each of the written test is laid down. After careful reading, no syntactical indication or teleological reference can be found to support the complainant's interpretation.
1.3 As regards the complainant's allegation that there was an error in the Notice of Competition, the Council explained in a letter to the complainant explained that the wording "highest mark" was an unfortunate mistranslation and should have read "maximum mark". The original officially adopted French version reads "note maximale" and the correct German translation "Höchstpunktzahl". The Council apologised for any confusion or ambiguity this error in the English version might have caused.
1.4 Based on the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there are no elements to support the complainant's interpretation that the erroneous wording "highest mark" referred to "highest mark obtained by another candidate". The Ombudsman finds that the marking scheme used by the Selection Board was in conformity with the Notice of Competition and, therefore, the Ombudsman has found no maladministration in relation to this aspect of the case.
2 Alleged lack of information
2.1 Based on her interpretation of point VI(a) 4 of the Notice, the complainant requested information on the highest mark obtained by another candidate for test N° 3. The Council considered that the complainant's interpretation of the above mentioned point was manifestly unfounded and, therefore no information on the highest mark obtained by another candidate was given.
2.2 In view of the findings in section 1 of this decision, the Ombudsman did not consider it necessary to ask the Council to supply information on the highest mark obtained by another candidate for test N° 3.
3 Conclusion
On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the Council. The Ombudsman has therefore decided to close the case.
The Secretary General of the Council of the European Union will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely
Jacob SÖDERMAN