Dear Mr B.,

On 15 May 2002, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning your participation in open competition COM/A/7/01.

On 17 June 2002, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 14 August 2002. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 3 December 2002.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant participated in competition COM/A/7/01, to constitute a reserve of principal administrators (A5/A4) in the field of human resources management. The preselection tests and the written tests took place on 23 November 2001.

By letter of 19 December 2001, the Chairman of the Selection Board informed the complainant that his written test would not be marked. Contrary to the condition laid down in the notice of competition, the complainant's educational qualification appeared not to satisfy the requirements of point III.B.2 of the notice which stipulates that by the closing date for submission of applications, candidates must have completed a course of university education and obtained a degree. On 27 December 2001, the complainant wrote to the Selection Board alleging that an oversight must have occurred in the verification of the supporting documents, since he was in possession of university diploma as requested by the notice. On 11 February 2002, the Selection Board stated that after re-examining the complainant's file, his university diploma was found to be sufficient for the needs of the competition concerned. However, the complainant could not be admitted to the competition because he did not satisfy the requirements concerning professional experience.

In his complaint, Mr B. alleged that the Selection Board had acted negligently in examining his candidature and that the decision to exclude him from the competition on grounds of lack of professional experience was unreasonable.

THE INQUIRY

The European Commission's opinion

In its opinion, the Commission made the following points:

The complainant took the preselection and the written tests of the above competition on 23 November 2001. On the basis of the points obtained in the preselection test, he was among the 150 best candidates. According to point IV of the notice of competition, the Selection Board looked at the complainant's dossier to ascertain if his qualifications corresponded to the admission conditions laid down in point III. Following its examination, the Selection Board considered that the complainant did not meet the conditions of point III.B.2 of the notice of competition, relating to the educational qualification. The complainant was therefore informed, by letter of 19 December 2001, that his written tests would not be marked.

On 27 December 2001, the complainant wrote to the Selection Board and requested it to reconsider its decision, since it appeared that an oversight had occurred in the verification of the supporting documents included with his application.

On 11 February 2002, the Selection Board replied to the complainant pointing out that, having re-examined his file, it had found his university diploma to be sufficient for the need of the competition concerned. However, the Selection Board confirmed its decision not to admit the complainant to the next stage of the competition, this time on the grounds of lack of professional experience. According to point III.B.3, candidates must have at least twelve years' graduate-level of professional experience since obtaining their degree, including nine years in the field described in section II ("duties").

On 25 February 2002, the complainant wrote a further letter to the Selection Board, in which he expressed his surprise at the way in which his dossier had been examined and requested a new re-examination of his dossier.

The Selection Board replied on 12 March 2002. It explained that, in view of the initial reason to exclude the candidate, i.e. the apparent absence of the required university diploma, it had not considered it necessary to mention the lack of professional experience.

On 25 March 2002, the complainant asked again that his application be reviewed. In his request to the Selection Board, he pointed out that as foreseen by the notice of competition, it was under the obligation to conduct a complete review of his application and therefore identify all the reasons for the exclusion. Furthermore, the complainant stressed that the statements that he had included in his letter from previous employers were a mere declaration of the period of employment and the title of the position held and that they did not necessarily describe the activity performed. However, his CV clearly described all the Human Resources related activities he had performed.

By letter dated 22 April 2002, the Selection Board confirmed its decision stressing that on the basis of the supporting documents enclosed by the applicant, it was not possible to ensure that the complainant met all the special conditions set out in the notice of competition.

Furthermore, the Commission pointed out that the rules governing the work of the Selection Board had been fully respected, and that the conditions of admissibility for all candidates had been verified and carefully re-examined when requested.

Concerning the complainant's file, the Commission stressed that the dossiers of all candidates who had obtained the 150 best scores at the preselection tests had been examined in the same way. At first, the Selection Board checked the compliance with the condition laid down in point III.B.2 of the notice of competition, relating to the required educational skills. Once these conditions appeared to be fulfilled, the Selection Board checked whether the conditions relating to the professional experience were also met. The supporting documents provided by the complainant did not prove the nine years' of professional experience in the area of human resources. As regards the positions of courier or financial officer which the complainant held between 1997 and 2000, the Selection Board did not take them into account because they did not relate to the field of the competition.

The complainant's observations

In his observations on the Commission's opinion, the complainant pointed out that in his view, the Commission had still failed to address the key issue of his complaint, the alleged negligence by the Selection Board in fulfilling its obligation when assessing his candidature. In all its procedures the Commission has the responsibility and duty of care and an obligation to examine an application in its entirety. However, it is clear that during the first examination of the file, the Selection Board failed to recognise the validity of his degree, duly attested in the supporting documents.

As regards his professional experience, the complainant maintained his original position.

He also stated that he failed to understand the Commission's comments about the position he held between 1997 and 2000, which had not been the subject of any previous correspondence.

THE DECISION

1 The assessment of the complainant's application by the Selection Board

1.1 The complainant, candidate in competition COM/A/7/01, alleged that the Selection Board had acted negligently in examining his candidature and that the decision to exclude him from the competition on grounds of lack of professional experience was unreasonable.

1.2 In its opinion, the Commission referred to the factual aspects of the case and to the intensive exchange of correspondence between its services and the complainant.

1.3 As regard the assessment of the complainant's application, it stressed that the Selection Board had first considered that the complainant did not meet the conditions of point III.B.2 of the notice of competition, relating to the educational qualification. The complainant had therefore been informed, by letter of 19 December 2001, that his written tests would not be marked. On 27 December 2001, the complainant had written to the Selection Board and requested it to reconsider its decision, since it appeared that an oversight had occurred in the verification of the supporting documents included with his application. On 11 February 2002, the Selection Board had replied to the complainant pointing out that, having re-examined his file, it had found his university diploma to be sufficient for the need of the concerned competition. However, the Selection Board had confirmed its decision not to admit the complainant to the next stage of the competition, this time on the grounds of lack of professional experience. According to point III.B.3, candidates must have at least twelve years' graduate-level of professional experience since obtaining their degree, including nine years in the field described in section II ("duties").

The Commission also pointed out that the dossiers of all candidates who had obtained the 150 best scores at the preselection tests had been then examined in the same way. At first, the Selection Board had checked the compliance with the condition laid down in point III.B.2 of the notice of competition, relating to the required educational skills. Once these conditions appeared to be fulfilled, the Selection Board had checked whether the conditions relating to the professional experience were also met. The supporting documents provided by the complainant did not prove the nine years' of professional experience in the area of human resources.

1.4 The Ombudsman considers that it is regrettable that in the complainant's case an oversight has occurred in the examination of the complainant's educational diploma by the Selection Board. However, it appears that following the complainant's request, the Selection Board recognised that a mistake had occurred and stated that the complainant met the admissibility conditions as regards the level of education required.

1.5 As regards the professional experience, as Community courts have consistently held, the Selection Board enjoys a wide margin of discretion in assessing both the length and the nature of the prior professional experience of candidates, which can only be reviewed to ascertain whether its exercise has been vitiated by a manifest error. In carrying out such an assessment, the Selection Board is bound by the wording of the competition's notice(1).

Point III.B.3. of the notice of competition COM/A/7/01 required at least twelve years' graduate-level professional experience since obtaining the degree, including nine years in the fields described in section II ("duties").

Furthermore, point IV.7 reads that if, at any stage in the procedure, the Selection Board finds that the information on the candidate application is incorrect or does not tally with the supporting documents or that he/she does not meet one or more of the general or special conditions for admission to the competition, he/she will be disqualified.

1.6 The Ombudsman notes that the competition's Selection Board, having reviewed the different documents submitted by the complainant, concluded that they did not contain information proving that the candidate possessed the occupational experience required in the notice.

From the information available to the Ombudsman, it appears that there is no evidence that the Selection Board exceeded its powers when assessing the complainant's application or that it acted in breach of the competition notice when deciding that he did not meet the admissibility conditions.

1.7On the basis of the above, there appears to have been no maladministration by the Commission as regards this aspect of the case.

2 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the European Commisison. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

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

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN

---

(1) Case T-214/99, Manuel Tomás Carrasco Benítez v Commission of the European Communities [2000], ECR-SC page IA-257, II-1169, paragraphs 69-71.