Strasbourg, 14 June 2005

Dear Mr X,

On 7 May 2004, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Parliament concerning your oral test in open competition PE/32/B.

On 17 June 2004, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Parliament. Following a request by Parliament for an extension of the deadline for submitting its opinion and certain delays by the same institution in providing a translation of the opinion, the opinion was sent in Irish on 8 December 2004. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 19 January 2005.

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

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the relevant facts are, in summary, as follows:

The complainant participated in open competition PE/32/B. Having succeeded in the written tests, he was admitted to the oral tests. During the interview with the selection board, he was asked in French about something that happened 16 years earlier and the person who started speaking French spoke at a low voice and was difficult to hear. The complainant was thus not given a proper chance to show his knowledge of French, particularly since the selection board tried to examine his knowledge of four languages in ten minutes. The selection board even changed language in the middle of one subject discussed. He was asked questions in all languages that he had put in his CV, i.e. Spanish, German, French and Italian. He found it very difficult to switch from one language to another on the spot and added that he had not said in the application form that he spoke Italian.

The complainant alleges that the selection board acted unfairly by:

1. Not giving him the chance to show his knowledge of French;

2. Asking questions in Italian although he had not indicated in his CV that he spoke Italian; and

3. Giving an oral exam in four languages in ten minutes.

The complainant claims that he should be given the opportunity to retake the oral test in order to show his knowledge of French.

THE INQUIRY

The European Parliament's opinion

In its opinion, the European Parliament makes, in summary, the following comments:

The complainant participated in open competition PE/32/B and was admitted to the oral tests which were held in Brussels on 4 February 2004. The complainant obtained 9 marks in the language test, for which the minimum requisite score was 10, and he was therefore informed that he had been eliminated from the competition.

As regards the complaint to the Ombudsman, Parliament recalls that, according to established case law of the Court of Justice, the selection board is bound by the notice of competition, which in this case stipulated the following (section VII.4(b)): "Conversation with the selection board to test candidates' knowledge of languages (see section III.B.3). Maximum time allowed: 15 minutes. Marking: out of 20. Candidates scoring less than 10 will be eliminated". Parliament therefore argues that the complainant knew, from the beginning of the procedure, that there would be a test designed to examine his knowledge of languages and that the maximum length of the test was 15 minutes. The complainant was tested only in the languages which he had stated in his application that he knew. The complainant had, in fact, mentioned Italian, Spanish and German in his application. The time allowed for the test was sufficient to enable the selection board to assess the level of each candidate's knowledge of languages. As regards the complainant's argument that he was not given sufficient time to show his knowledge of French, Parliament recalls that, in his complaint, the complainant acknowledged that he had "moderately good French" rather than the “good” knowledge stipulated in the notice of competition.

During the test in question, the selection board informed the complainant that the questions he was asked in languages other than his first foreign language (i.e. French) could only add to his score, and that he would not be penalised for failing to answer questions. Consequently, by asking questions in Italian, the selection board was acting in the candidate's interests. The complainant did not ask the selection board to repeat any questions or indicate that he had not understood the questions. All the questions were put very clearly to all the candidates by the members of the selection board, who had excellent knowledge of the languages being examined.

Parliament further recalls that the selection board has wide discretionary powers and that its assessment can only be reviewed in the event of the rules governing its work being flouted. The present complaint does not provide any ground for concluding that the selection board failed to comply with the notice of competition or other legal requirements. With regard to the marking of the oral test referred to in point VII (4)(b) of the notice of competition, the selection board applied the same criteria for the assessment of all candidates' knowledge of languages. The selection board had decided to allocate the 20 marks available for the oral test referred to in that point of the notice of competition as follows: 0-12 for the first foreign language and 0-2 for other languages up to a maximum of 8 marks. Furthermore, the selection board had decided to test all the languages mentioned by candidates in their applications, in order to be able to award candidates the maximum number of marks.

The complainant's observations

In his observation, the complainant maintains his complaint and makes, in summary, the following remarks:

Parliament argues that he did not ask for any of the questions put to him by the selection board to be repeated. However, when being asked a question in German, the complainant remembers saying "bitte" because he did not hear the question. He also remembers that he was almost up on the table in front of him trying to hear the members of the selection board.

If it is true that only 12 marks were given to any candidate for one language, then he was treated unfairly because he was interviewed in other languages without warning. He should have been given the same chance and amount of time as any other candidate to speak in French and, if other languages were to be evaluated as well, he should have been given more time. It is much more difficult to answer questions in three languages than in only one language and it is not fair to test three languages using the same amount of time as for those candidates who are tested in only one language. The complainant questions how the selection board can evaluate the knowledge of a language by asking only one question in that language. Furthermore, it is irrelevant how he estimated his own knowledge of French, as "moderately good" or anything else, since he might require a very high standard to call it "good".

It is also troubling that a candidate is asked to speak in a language without having provided any evidence that he or she speaks that language. The complainant does not understand how Parliament can argue that he knew that he would be interviewed in four languages. He thought that only French would be tested during the oral test. He did not think that mentioning other languages on the application form meant that he agreed to be interviewed in these languages. The complainant remembers filling in a form saying that he was able to read some Italian, but he did not mention anywhere that he spoke Italian. He does not understand why Parliament does not provide a copy of the part of the form where he had mentioned that he was able to read some Italian, but that he had no experience in speaking it.

During the interview with the selection board, he mentioned, in fluent Spanish, that he found it very difficult to change from one language to another. Despite this remark in Spanish, he only got half a mark for Spanish. He also stated, in broken Italian, that he could not speak Italian. However, he did not obtain any marks for Italian.

THE DECISION

1 Alleged unfairness in testing the complainant's knowledge of languages

1.1 The complaint concerns the complainant's oral test in open competition PE/32/B. The complainant argues that he was not given a proper chance to show his knowledge of French, particularly since the selection board tried to examine his knowledge of four languages in ten minutes. In addition, he had to talk about something that happened 16 years earlier and the person who started to speak in French was difficult to hear. According to the complainant, he should have been given the same chance and amount of time as any other candidate to speak in French and, if other languages were to be evaluated as well, he should have been given more time. It is much more difficult to answer questions in several languages than in only one language and it is not fair to test several languages using the same amount of time as for those candidates who are tested in only one language. In addition, he was only asked one question in French. The complainant alleges that the selection board acted unfairly by not giving him the chance to show his knowledge of French and by giving an oral exam in four languages in ten minutes.

1.2 The complainant further argues that he thought that only French would be tested during the oral test. He did not think that mentioning other languages on the application form meant that he agreed to be interviewed in these languages. The complainant remembers filling in a form saying that he was able to read some Italian, but he did not mention anywhere that he had spoken Italian. He does not understand why Parliament does not provide a copy of the part of the form where he had mentioned that he was able to read some Italian, but that he had no experience in speaking it. The complainant alleges that the selection board acted unfairly by asking questions in Italian although he had not indicated in his CV that the spoke Italian.

1.3 Parliament argues that, according to the established case law of the Court of Justice, the selection board is bound by the notice of competition, which in this case stipulated the following (section VII.4(b)): "Conversation with the selection board to test candidates' knowledge of languages (see section III.B.3). Maximum time allowed: 15 minutes. Marking: out of 20. Candidates scoring less than 10 will be eliminated". Parliament therefore argues that the complainant knew, from the beginning of the procedure, that there would be a test designed to examine his knowledge of languages and that the maximum length of the test was 15 minutes. The complainant was tested only in the languages which he had stated in his application that he knew, i.e. French, Italian, Spanish and German. The length set for the test was sufficient to enable the selection board to assess the level of each candidate's knowledge of languages. The members of the selection board had excellent knowledge of the languages being examined. The selection board applied the same criteria for the assessment of all candidates' knowledge of languages. The selection board had decided to allocate the 20 marks available for the oral test as follows: 0-12 for the first foreign language and 0-2 for other languages up to a maximum of 8 marks. The selection board had also decided to test all the languages mentioned by candidates in their applications, in order to be able to award candidates the maximum number of marks. The selection board informed the complainant that questions asked in languages other than his first foreign language, i.e. French, could only add to his score and the selection board therefore only acted in the complainant's interests when asking him questions in Italian.

1.4 The Ombudsman recalls that the notice of competition, the wording of which was binding on the selection board(1), indeed stipulated, in section VII.4(b), that the oral test would include a "[c]onversation with the selection board to test candidates' knowledge of languages (see section III.B.3). Maximum time allowed: 15 minutes. Marking: out of 20. Candidates scoring less than 10 will be eliminated". Section III.B.3, which laid down the requirements as regards language knowledge, stipulated, inter alia, that candidates had to have a thorough knowledge of one European Union official language, satisfactory knowledge of a second such language, and that knowledge of other European Union official languages would be taken into account, particularly in the oral tests.

1.5 The Ombudsman also recalls that according to the established case law of the Community courts, the selection board enjoys a wide margin of discretion as regards the arrangements for, and detailed content of, the test provided for within the framework of a competition(2). The detailed content of a test is not open to review unless it exceeds the limits laid down in the notice of competition or conflicts with the purposes of the test or of the competition(3).

1.6 The Ombudsman has carefully examined the part of the complainant's application form that was annexed to Parliament's opinion. The Ombudsman notes that under point 7 in the application form ("Knowledge of languages") the complainant had indicated good knowledge of Spanish, German and French, and fair knowledge of Italian. The Ombudsman is not aware of any other parts of the application form where candidates were asked to provide information about their knowledge of languages, such as whether they had passive knowledge only.

1.7 The Ombudsman therefore considers that the selection board, on the basis of its margin of discretion and the wording of the notice of competition, was entitled to use the allocated time, i.e. a maximum of 15 minutes, to test the candidates' knowledge of all languages that they had indicated on their application forms. The complainant's application form indicated fair knowledge of Italian and the Ombudsman finds no reason why the selection board should not have been entitled to ask him questions in that language. The Ombudsman further considers that, on the basis of the wording of the notice of competition, the complainant should have been aware of the possibility that, during the oral exam, he could be asked questions in all the languages of which he had indicated knowledge on the application form. The Ombudsman also notes Parliament's explanation, which the complainant has not contradicted, that by testing extra languages the candidates were given the opportunity to be awarded extra marks.

1.8 As regards the complainant's allegation that he was not given an adequate opportunity to show his knowledge of his first foreign language, i.e. French, and that he should have been given the same opportunity and amount of time as any other candidate to speak in his first foreign language, the Ombudsman has not found any evidence to suggest that the complainant was not given sufficient opportunity to demonstrate his knowledge of French, or that he was treated unfairly compared with other candidates.

1.9 On the basis of the above, the Ombudsman does not consider the selection board to have acted outside its margin of discretion or to have exceeded the limits laid down in the notice of competition when carrying out the complainant's oral test. The Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration by the European Parliament regarding the matter.

2 The complainant's claim

2.1 The complainant claims that he should be given the opportunity to retake the oral test in order to show his knowledge of French.

2.2 In view of the finding in 1.9 above, the Ombudsman finds no reason to pursue the complainant's claim.

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) See e.g. case T-54/91, Nicole Almeida Antunes v. European Parliament [1992] ECR II-1739, paragraph 39.

(2) Case T-132/89, Gallone v. Council [1990] ECR II-549, paragraph 27.

(3) See joined cases 64, 71 to 73 and 78/96, Sergio and others v. Commission [1998] ECR 1399, paragraph 22; and case T-156/89, Valverde Mordt v. Court of Justice [1991] ECR II-407, paragraph 121.