# Decision of the European Ombudsman on complaint 1771/2004/GG against the European Parliament
- Autor: Provedor de Justiça Europeu
- Data : 2004-10-14T00:00+02:00[Europe/Paris]
- [URL](https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/pt/decision/pt/2214)
---
Strasbourg, 14 October 2004   

Dear Mr X.,

On 8 June 2004, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against
the European Parliament concerning competition PE/98/A.

On 16 June 2004, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European
Parliament. Parliament sent its opinion on 13 September 2004. I forwarded
it to you on 22 September 2004 with an invitation to make observations,
which you sent on 28 September 2004.

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

THE COMPLAINT
-------------

The complainant successfully passed competition CC/A/12/02 (Information
technology -- grade A7/A6). After the publication of the relevant reserve
list in August 2002 he approached several institutions, including the
European Parliament, without however finding a suitable post.

In February 2004, the European Parliament published Notice of competition
PE/98/A (Engineers with telecommunications expertise -- grade A5/A4). According
to this notice of competition, the Selection Board was to assess applications
in order to find the 15 best candidates who were to be invited to the
oral examinations.

The complainant applied to take part in competition PE/98/A. He was
subsequently informed by Parliament that he was not among these 15 candidates.
On 6 April 2004, he asked the EP to re-examine his application. On 25
May 2004, the complainant received a detailed letter setting out the reasons
for the relevant decision.

In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant noted that he had
only received 9.88 points out of a maximum of 20 points, putting him in
24th position among 38 candidates. The complainant submitted that the
rating of his university studies (4.4 points out of 6) had been incorrect,
given that he had a degree in mathematics and that he had passed a post-university
course in computer engineering. He also pointed out that he had received
0.2 points (out of 0.4) on the 'electronic mail' section, although this
activity had always been part of his responsibilities. According to the
complainant, the 'network security' section had also been unfairly rated
at 0.2. (out of 0.4) points. The complainant further submitted that the
section 'integration of services on a workstation' where he had received
only 0.2 (out of 0.4) points was a domain where he had collected a great
deal of experience.

On the basis of the above, the complainant concluded that he should
have been given at least 12.08 points.

The complainant also wondered why his professional experience had only
been rated at 1.08 (out of 6) points.

The complainant thus basically alleged that the European Parliament
had failed properly to assess his application to take part in competition
PE/98/A. He claimed that he should be admitted to the oral examination
of the competition.

THE INQUIRY
-----------

**The European Parliament's opinion**   

In its opinion, the European Parliament made the following comments:

The Selection Board had assessed the complainant's application and awarded
him 9.88 out of 20 points, which placed him in 24th position among the
38 candidates admitted to the competition. The complainant had been informed
of this result and of the fact that he was not among the 15 best candidates
by letter dated 29 March 2004.

By letter dated 6 April 2004, the complainant had challenged this assessment,
drawing attention to his training and experience, and had asked for his
application to be reconsidered. However, because of technical problems
the Competitions Unit had not received this letter until 24 May 2004.
The letter was then forwarded immediately to the Selection Board.

At its meeting of 24 May 2004, the Selection Board had reviewed the
complainant's application and confirmed its decision not to admit him
to the oral tests. The complainant had been informed of this decision
and of the underlying reasons by letter of 25 May 2004.

The assessment of qualifications and experience was, by its very nature,
a comparative exercise in which the merits of candidates were compared.
In order to ensure that all candidates were treated equally, the Selection
board had based its assessment on a marking grid that had been drawn up
in advance on the basis of the text of the notice of competition.

In accordance with established case-law in this matter, the Selection
Board had a wide power of discretion in assessing the merits of candidates
and the Administration was unable to overturn the Selection Board's decision
not to invite the complainant to the oral tests.
**The complainant's observations**   

In his observations, the complainant stressed that he had sent spontaneous
applications to Parliament five months before the announcement of the
competition and that he therefore considered the justification of the
competition in question (to establish a list of suitable candidates in
order to fill posts that could not be filled by internal transfer, by
internal competition or by transfer of staff from other EU institutions)
to be weak. The complainant stated that he would like an independent expert
to examine his application and to address the issues that he had raised
in his complaint.

THE DECISION
------------

**1 Introductory remark**   

1.1 In his complaint lodged in June 2004, the complainant objected to
the result of the assessment of his application for competition PE/98/A
that had been organised by the European Parliament with a view to recruiting
Engineers with telecommunications expertise (grade A5/A4).

1.2 In his observations on Parliament's opinion, the complainant called
into doubt the justification for organising this competition. The complainant
pointed out that he had passed another competition (competition CC/A/12/02
- information technology -- grade A7/A6), that he had been put on the reserve
list for this competition and that he had sent spontaneous applications
to Parliament five months before the announcement of competition PE/98/A.

1.3 The European Ombudsman considers that the complainant has not made
a clear allegation as regards the justification for organising competition
PE/98/A and that it is therefore not appropriate to deal with this issue
in the present inquiry. The complainant is free to submit a further complaint
regarding this issue to the Ombudsman, after having made the appropriate
prior approaches to Parliament.
**2 Allegedly incorrect assessment of application**   

2.1 The complainant noted that he had only received 9.88 points out of
a maximum of 20 points as regards his application. He submitted that the
rating of his university studies (4.4 points out of 6), of the 'electronic
mail's section (0.2 points out of 0.4), of the 'network security' section
(0.2. points out of 0.4) and of the section 'integration of services on
a workstation' (0.2 points out of 0.4) had been incorrect and that he
should have been given at least 12.08 points.

2.2 In its opinion, Parliament took the view that the Selection Board
had a wide power of discretion in assessing the merits of candidates and
the Administration was unable to overturn the Selection Board's decision
not to invite the complainant to the oral tests.

2.3 The Ombudsman notes that according to the established case-law of
the Community courts the Selection Board has a wide power of discretion
in assessing the merits of candidates and that the courts can only intervene
in case there has been a manifest error as regards this assessment[(1)](#(1)){#Footnote1}.
The Ombudsman considers it appropriate in a case such as the present to
apply the same standard of review as the court as regards the substance
of the decision reached by the selection board. In the Ombudsman's view,
the complainant has not shown that a manifest error had occurred in the
present case regarding the assessment of his application. In these circumstances,
there are no grounds to consider the complainant's request that an independent
expert should examine his application.
**3 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,

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

*** ** * ** ***

[(1)](#Footnote1){#(1)} See, for example, Case T-139/00
*Bal v. Commission* \[2002\] ECR SC II-139, paragraph 55.