Dear Mr M.,

On 23 December 2000, you lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman concerning the European Commission's dealing with job applications for posts within the Delegation of the European Commission in Moscow.

On 19 January 2001, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The European Commission sent its opinion on 30 March 2001 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. I received your observations on 23 April 2001 and you reserved your right to submit further observations before 31 May 2001. I have received further observations on 1 June 2001.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant is an Italian citizen who used to live in Moscow where his family currently lives. Being unemployed, he applied for posts within the Delegation of the European Commission in Moscow on several occasions. He sent applications both to the Commission in Brussels and directly to the Delegation. The Commission failed to reply to some applications. In some other cases it replied that the Delegation had no vacancies.

In December 1999, the complainant visited the Delegation and noticed that new posts had been filled. The complainant considered that he would have been a suitable candidate for these posts but that his applications, if at all replied to, were only rejected on the basis of the lack of vacancies.

On 23 December 2000, the complainant therefore lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman and made following allegations:

1. The Commission failed to reply to several job applications the complainant sent to its Delegation or directly to the Institution in Brussels.
2. Although the complainant's skills qualified him for several post, his applications had not been taken into consideration when posts became vacant within the Delegation.

THE INQUIRY

The European Commission's opinion

The opinion of the European Commission on the complaint was in summary the following:

1. Since 1996, the complainant had indeed spontaneously sent about ten applications to the Delegation. The Delegation twice replied that there was no vacancy. The Delegation stopped answering the unsolicited frequent applications since there was no new element to communicate and because the number of applications was considered to be excessive.
2. The Delegation had kept the complainant's CV but in the meantime there had been no post available for which the complainant's application could have been considered. The complainant's main diploma (physical education), working experience (commercial director) or knowledge of languages (inadequate level in French and no English) did not accord with the profiles requested for the advertised vacancies. The Commission understands the complainant's difficult personal situation but has no post to offer to him.

The complainant's observations

The European Ombudsman forwarded the European Commission's opinion to the complainant with an invitation to make observations. In his reply of 23 April 2000, the complainant maintained his complaint and considered that the Commission had not adequately responded to his allegations. He in particular pointed out that all his applications should have been reviewed since he had put into question the Delegation's recruitment procedure.

Further observations were received by the Ombudsman on 1 June 2001. The complainant considered that the treatment of his applications had not been fair. The Commission allegedly tried to minimise the complainant's professional experience and level of education. The complainant applied for basic posts such as usher, chauffeur or security guard. According to the complainant's own investigations these types of posts had become vacant since he sent his first application in 1996. Given that he was overqualified for these posts, he would certainly have been the best available candidate. Instead, mainly personnel of Greek nationality had been recruited regardless of the complainant's experience and personal situation.

The complainant requests to be put on the post he requested. He also requests to have access to the contracts of the personnel recruited since his first application in 1996 as well as to information about the salaries and the payments made to pension schemes.

THE DECISION

1 Alleged failure to reply to applications

1.1 The complainant alleged that the Commission failed to reply to several job applications he sent to its Delegation or directly to the Institution in Brussels.

1.2 The Commission stated that two answers had been sent. The Commission however refrained from sending further answers because the situation remained unchanged and the number of applications from the complainant was excessive.

1.3 The Ombudsman notes that the complainant does not appear to have applied for a precise post advertised by the Commission. He has sent twelve spontaneous job applications to the Delegation and the Commission in Brussels. The Commission's explanation as to the reasons for its decision not to reply to all the complainant's applications does not appear to be unreasonable. The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that there is no evidence of maladministration as regards this aspect of the case.

2 Failure to consider the complainant's applications

2.1 The complainant put forward that although his skills qualified him for several post, his applications had not been taken into consideration when posts became vacant within the Delegation.

2.2 The Commission replied that the complainant's qualifications did not accord with the profile of the posts to be filled. One of the requirements which are of importance for the Delegation is to master the English language and for some posts also the French language. Further requirements such as the education and working experience are closely linked to the post to be filled.

2.3 The complainant does not appear to have applied for a precise post advertised by the Commission. In his applications, the complainant explained that he would be available for anyone of the following posts : interpreter, deputy technical assistant, clerk, usher, chauffeur or security agent.

2.4 In the present case, the Commission provided the Ombudsman with a detailed explanation as to why it considered that the complainant did not have the necessary qualifications to occupy one of the posts which had become vacant. The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that there is no evidence of maladministration as regards this aspect of the case.

3 Conclusion

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.

The President of the European Commission will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN