Strasbourg, 2 October 2007

Dear Mr X,

On 21 April 2006, you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Parliament concerning recruitment procedure No G 682 organised by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

The documents relating to your complaint were sent by e-mail correspondence of 29 May 2006 and by letter of 31 May 2006.

In accordance with your request, your complaint has been treated confidentially.

On 21 June 2006, I forwarded your complaint to the President of Parliament and asked Parliament to submit an opinion.

By letter of 25 September 2006, Parliament requested an extension of the time-limit for submitting its opinion, and sent it on 31 October 2006. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 28 November 2006.

By letter of 17 July 2007, I informed you that I was in possession of all the elements necessary in order to take a decision on your complaint and that further inquiries were thus not necessary.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant took part in recruitment procedure No G 682 organised by the European Parliament's Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe ("ALDE") with the purpose of recruiting a French-language temporary agent to the post of administrator . The Selection Committee awarded the complainant's written test A.3. (essay in English) 12 points out of 30 for content (pass-mark 15) and 6 points out of 10 for the linguistic quality (pass-mark 5). Since he failed to attain the pass-mark for the test, the complainant was not admitted to the interview.

On 7 December 2005, the complainant wrote to the president of the Selection Committee and requested (i) a re-examination of his test; (ii) a copy of his test; and (iii) a copy of the marking grid (la grille de correction).

By letter of 8 December 2005(1), the president of the Selection Committee confirmed to the complainant the results he attained in each of the three written tests A.1 - A.3, and informed him that his essay had been re-examined and still found to be insufficient. He also noted that the provision of the detailed results to him constituted as well the provision of the marking grid to him.

On 28 December 2005, the complainant lodged an Article 90(2) complaint to the Secretary-General of ALDE, in which he mainly:

1. stated that the promptness of the Selection Committee's reply of 8 December 2005 to his request for re-examination of 7 December 2005 made him doubt whether his essay had indeed been re-examined by the Selection Committee;
2. took the view that the Selection Committee did not provide him with a copy of the marking grid, and doubted whether such a grid had been in fact established;
3. informed ALDE that he had his essay re-read by an expert in the English language who considered that it deserved a mark corresponding to at least 50%; and
4. requested (i) a copy of the marking grid, (ii) a factual re-examination of his written test by an independent marker, and (iii) to be invited for the interview.

By letter of 4 April 2006, the Leader of ALDE formally rejected the complainant's Article 90(2) complaint on the following grounds:

1. In view of the independence of Selection Committees, the Appointing Authority can neither annul nor modify a decision of a Selection Committee. In case the Appointing Authority establishes that there was an illegality or a formal error, it can only annul the relevant recruitment procedure and start a new one.
2. However, after having examined the Selection Committee's decision concerning the complainant, the Appointing Authority did not establish any illegality or formal error. In accordance with point VI.A.3 of the Recruitment Notice, the Selection Committee excluded the candidates who failed to obtain a minimum of 20 points, that is, 15 points out of 30 and 5 points out of 10, for test A.3. Moreover, the Selection Committee applied, in a consistent manner, the same marking criteria to all the candidates, no irregularity was revealed; and it respected the principle of equal treatment.
3. The complainant's essay had been re-examined by all four members of the Selection Committee who unanimously maintained the initial marking.
4. In spite of the secrecy inherent in the Selection Committee's proceedings, by letter of 13 January 2006(2), the president of the Selection Committee provided the complainant with a detailed explanation of the reasons why his performance was found to be insufficient.
5. The Selection Committee once more informed the complainant that the marking grid provided for a scale of 0 to 30 points for the content of the essay and of 0 to 10 points for the linguistic level thereof. That marking grid had been used by the Selection Committee for the correction of all the candidates' tests and made possible an evaluation of the tests in accordance with point VI.A.3 of the Recruitment Notice. The complainant's test thus could not be re-examined by a person external to the Selection Committee, because this would undermine the equal treatment of the candidates.
6. According to the established case-law ( Case T-19/03 Konstantopoulou v Court of Justice(3)), a Selection Committee disposes of a wide margin of discretion as regards the methods of correction. In the present case, the complainant failed to submit any evidence to show that the method of correction used by the Selection Committee did not ensure equal treatment of candidates and the objectivity of the choice made among them.
7. The issue of whether or not the value judgments of a Selection Committee are well-founded can only be reviewed by the Community Courts, in cases of infringement of the rules governing the Committee 's proceedings. However, those rules have been respected in the present case.

In his complaint to the European Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that Parliament failed to provide him with a detailed marking grid upon his request. He claimed that Parliament should provide him with such a detailed marking grid, and that, should it fail to do so, the recruitment procedure should be annulled and a new one launched.

THE INQUIRY

Parliament’s opinion

The Ombudsman forwarded the complaint to Parliament and asked it to submit an opinion on the complainant's allegation and his claims. The Ombudsman also asked Parliament to provide a copy of the marking criteria used by the Selection Committee.

Parliament's opinion can be summarised as follows:

Parliament stated that the Selection Committee strictly applied the provisions of the Recruitment Notice by not admitting to subsequent stages of the procedure candidates who failed to attain the thresholds set out in that Notice. Parliament cited point VI.A. of the Recruitment Notice which reads as follows(4):

"Nature, duration and marking of the tests

1. Test comprising a series of multiple-choice questions in English or in French and designed to assess knowledge of the European Union, its institutions and policies as well as its cultural and social environment.

Duration of the test: 20 minutes
Marking: 0 to 20 points

Every mark inferior to 12/20 will lead to elimination.

2. Summary in French or in English on the basis of a document distributed in English or in French. This test is designed to assess the candidates' capacity to analyse and summarise a topic as well as the level of their linguistic knowledge.

Duration of the test: 45 minutes
Marking: 0 to 10 points for the content
0 to 10 points for the linguistic level

Every mark inferior to 5/10 + 5/10 will lead to elimination.

3. Essay in French or in English on a topic chosen by the candidates among 3 proposals of the Selection Board - in English or in French - in the fields of activity of the European Union. This test is designed to assess the candidates' drafting capabilities, the level of knowledge as well as the linguistic level.

Duration of the test: 60 minutes
Marking: 0 to 30 points for the content
0 to 10 points for the linguistic level

Every mark inferior to 15/30 + 5/10 will lead to elimination.

(…)

Only candidates who have obtained a minimum of 42/80 points for the whole of the tests and have obtained a pass-mark for each of the parts may be called to the interviews by the Selection Committee appointed by the AIPN of the Group."

Parliament recalled that the complainant's test A.3. (essay) was awarded 12 points out of 30 for content and 6 points out of 10 for language. It pointed out that, in view of these marks, the complainant failed to obtain the threshold of 15 points for content, and thus, in accordance with the Recruitment Notice, he could not be admitted to the interview. Parliament added that the complainant's essay was corrected by four members of the Selection Committee who established the final mark unanimously.

Parliament went on to state that, following the complainant's request of 7 December 2005 for re-examination of his essay, the president of the Selection Committee wrote to him on 8 December 2005, 9 December 2005 and 13 January 2006. Parliament provided copies of these letters, and summarised their content in its opinion.

More precisely, by letter of 8 December 2005, the president of the Selection Committee confirmed to the complainant the results he attained in written tests A.1. - A.3., as follows:

"Test No 1 (MCQ) 23/35
Test No 2 (summary) 5,5/10 in Content and 8/10 in French language (Total: 13/20) [(5)]
Test No 3 (essay) 12/30 in Content and 6/10 in English language (Total: 18/40)"(6).

In the same letter of 8 December 2005, the president of the Selection Committee noted that the provision of the above information to the complainant constitutes the provision of the marking grid to him. He also stated that, after having, together with the representative of Parliament's Staff Committee, re-examined the complainant's essay, he still found it to be insufficient.

In its opinion on the present complaint, Parliament clarified that it follows from the above letter that the president of the Selection Committee, together with one member, namely, the representative of Parliament's Staff Committee, immediately re-examined the complainant's essay and confirmed the mark it obtained.

In addition, by letter of 9 December 2005, the president of the Selection Committee again informed the complainant of the results he obtained in the written tests, and repeated that the provision of that information constitutes the provision of the marking grid to him. Attached to the letter were copies of the complainant's three written tests.

Further, in his letter of 13 January 2006 to the complainant, the president of the Selection Committee expressed his dismay at his impugning (in the Article 90(2) complaint) the Selection Committee's integrity on the basis of its prompt and professional response of 8 December 2005 to his request for re-examination of 7 December 2005. The president of the Selection Committee assured him that all those involved in the corrections of tests are completely committed to the highest levels of impartiality and professionalism. He also informed the complainant that, after careful re-examination, the original evaluation of his essay remained unchanged, on the basis of the following reasons:

1. It is the unanimous decision of the Selection Committee that the essay does not contain the minimum level of political analysis and appropriate knowledge of the topics which are required of a political adviser in ALDE.
2. The lack of critical approach in the essay, its brevity, and inconsistent conclusions display an inability to analyse the complex phenomena of political parties in European society.
3. The essay lacks the historical background of the crisis of many traditional political parties in Europe and fails to describe the evolution of the newly established European ones.
4. The perception of the phenomena by citizens is absent, as well as any potentially fresh ideas as to how to improve the connection between the political parties and the wider European society.

In its opinion on the present complaint, Parliament expressed a view that, in the above letter, the complainant received a full and detailed statement of the reasons as to why his essay failed to attain the pass-mark.

In its opinion, Parliament also referred to the case-law of the Court of First Instance concerning Selection Boards in Open Competitions. Parliament stated that this case-law applies, by analogy, also to the proceedings of Selection Committees. In particular, Parliament referred to Case T-24/01 Staelen v Parliament, according to which the Appointing Authority disposes of a wide margin of discretion in setting the conditions for a competition and also explained that the Selection Board is bound by the wording of the Notice of Competition as published(7). Parliament went on to state that, if the Appointing Authority establishes an illegality or a procedural error, it can only annul the recruitment procedure. If no illegality or procedural error is established, the Appointing Authority may only invite the Selection Board to re-examine its decision taken concerning a candidate.

Further, Parliament referred to Case T-291/94 Pimley-Smith v Commission, according to which a Selection Board disposes of a wide margin of discretion as regards the content of tests. According to this case, the Community Courts can review the choice made by the Board only in cases where that choice exceeds the framework indicated in the Notice of Competition or is not, in any way, related to the purpose of the test or the competition(8). It follows, according to Parliament, that the Board disposes of a wide margin of discretion in determining whether the evaluation criteria resulting from a Notice of Competition are sufficiently precise as to enable it to fulfil its role.

Parliament also referred to Case T-237/95 Carbajo Ferrero v Parliament. In that case, the Court held that (i) a Selection Board disposes of a wide margin of discretion when evaluating the results of tests in a competition and (ii) the well-foundedness of a Board's value judgments, which are of a comparative nature, can be reviewed by it only in cases of infringement of the rules governing the Board's proceedings(9). However, Parliament emphasised that, in the present case, those rules have been respected.

As regards the marking grid, Parliament stated that the grid was developed in conformity with point VI.A.3. of the Recruitment Notice, and provided for a scale from 0 to 30 points for the content of the essay and from 0 to 10 points for the linguistic level thereof. The purpose of this marking grid, which was used by the Selection Committee in the marking of all the candidates' tests, was to ensure equal treatment of the candidates and to enable the Committee to apply objective criteria in a uniform manner to them. Therefore, the complainant's essay was evaluated in conformity with point VI.A.3. of the Recruitment Notice and could not be re-examined by a marker external to the Selection Committee.

As regards the marking criteria, Parliament stated that the modalities and the criteria for marking were defined prior to the tests. However, Parliament also referred to Case T-19/03 Konstantopoulou v Court of Justice, according to which, at the stage of assessing the candidates' capabilities, the Selection Board's proceedings are above all of a comparative nature and thus covered by the secrecy inherent in such proceedings. According to the same judgment, the marking criteria defined by the Board prior to the tests form an integral part of the Board's assessment and are thus covered by the secrecy inherent in its proceedings(10). It also follows from the above judgment that a Selection Committee disposes of a wide margin of discretion as regards the methods of correction of tests, which can be reviewed by the Community Courts only to the extent necessary to ensure equal treatment of candidates and the objectivity of the choice made among them(11).

On the basis of the above arguments, Parliament concluded that the complainant had been informed of the marking grid established by the Selection Committee, and took the view that all the questions raised in his complaint had been correctly dealt with in Parliament's opinion on the complaint.

The complainant's observations

In his observations, the complainant reiterated that he remained unconvinced by the promptness of the Selection Committee's reply of 8 December 2005 to his request for re-examination of 7 December 2005. He stated that Parliament sent no evidence, such as a notification to attend the re-examination, or minutes of it, showing that an urgent meeting of the Selection Board really took place.

As regards the marking grid, the complainant noted that Parliament referred to it in its opinion. He took the view that a copy of the grid should have been sent to the Ombudsman so as to enable him to establish its factual existence and to ascertain whether or not it was well-founded. He went on to say that such a course of action would not have necessitated forwarding the grid to the complainant and added that he fully accepted the principle of confidentiality.

On the basis of the above, the complainant considered that there was maladministration, irregularity and lack of transparency which justified the re-opening of the recruitment procedure and a decision to send him an invitation to the interview.

THE DECISION

1.1 The complainant took part in recruitment procedure No G 682 organised by Parliament's Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe ("ALDE") with the purpose of recruiting a French-language temporary agent for the post of administrator . He failed to attain the pass-mark for content in written test A.3. (essay in English) and was therefore not admitted to the interview.

During the exchange of correspondence with ALDE, which started on 7 December 2005, and in his Article 90(2) complaint of 28 December 2005, the complainant, among other things, requested (i) a re-examination of his essay; (ii) a copy of the essay; and (iii) a copy of the marking grid.

By letters of 8 December 2005, 9 December 2005 and 13 January 2006, the president of the Selection Committee (i) informed the complainant that his essay had been re-examined by the president together with one other member of the Selection Committee and was still found to be insufficient; (ii) provided him with copies of his three written tests; (iii) informed him of the results he obtained in those tests and noted that the provision of that information constitutes the provision of the marking grid to him; and (iv) provided him with a detailed explanation of the reasons why his test A.3. (essay) was found to be insufficient. By letter of 4 April 2006, the Leader of ALDE formally rejected the complainant's Article 90(2) complaint. He also informed him, among other things, that, after having examined the Selection Committee's decision concerning the complainant, the Appointing Authority did not establish any illegality or formal error in the marking of his essay. Moreover, this essay had been re-examined by all four members of the Selection Committee who unanimously maintained their initial results. He also informed the complainant that the marking grid provided for a scale from 0 to 30 points for the evaluation of the content of the essay and from 0 to 10 points for the evaluation of the linguistic level thereof. The Leader of ALDE also stated that the Selection Committee applied, in a consistent manner, the same marking criteria to all the candidates. Furthermore, it respected the principle of equal treatment and did not show any signs of impropriety.

In his complaint to the European Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that Parliament failed to provide him with a detailed marking grid upon his request. He claimed that Parliament should provide him with a detailed marking grid, and that, should it fail to do so, it should annul the recruitment procedure and launch a new one.

1.2 In its opinion, Parliament argued that it had informed the complainant of the marking grid. In this regard, Parliament referred to its letters of 8 December 2005 and 9 December 2005 to the complainant, in which the president of the Selection Committee informed him of his results in the written tests and in which he noted that the provision of that information to the complainant constitutes the provision of the marking grid to him.

Parliament added that the marking grid was developed in conformity with point VI.A.3. of the Recruitment Notice, and repeated that it provided for a scale from 0 to 30 points for the evaluation of the content of the essay and from 0 to 10 points for the linguistic level thereof. This marking grid, which was used by the Selection Committee in the marking of all the candidates' tests, aimed at ensuring equal treatment of the candidates and at enabling the Committee to apply objective criteria in a uniform manner to all of them. Parliament also referred to the case-law according to which (i) a Selection Board disposes of a wide margin of discretion as regards the methods by which it chooses to correct tests and (ii) those methods can be reviewed by the Community Courts only to the extent necessary to ensure equal treatment of candidates and the objectivity of the choice made among them(12).

Parliament also stated that the marking criteria were defined prior to the tests. It also referred to the case-law according to which, at the stage of assessing the candidates' capabilities, the Selection Board's proceedings are covered by the secrecy inherent in them, as are the marking criteria, which form an integral part of the Board's assessment(13). However, Parliament pointed out that, by letter of 13 January 2006, it provided the complainant with a full and detailed statement of reasons as to why his essay failed to attain the pass-mark.

1.3 The Ombudsman notes that, following the complainant's request of 7 December 2005 for a copy of the marking grid, the president of the Selection Committee informed him, by letter of 8 December 2005, as follows:

"(…) I confirm to you (…) the results obtained in the written tests of the above Competition and thus provide you with the marking grid.

Test No 1 (MCQ) 23/35
Test No 2 (summary) 5,5/10 in Content and 8/10 in French language (Total: 13/20) [(14)]

Test No 3 (essay) 12/30 in Content and 6/10 in English language (Total: 18/40)"(15).

The Ombudsman further notes that the president of the Selection Committee informed the complainant in similar terms by letter of 9 December 2005:

"We re-send you also the results obtained and thus the marking grid."(16)

The Ombudsman considers that it follows from the above that the Selection Committee considered that the provision of that information to the complainant constitutes the provision of the marking grid to him.

1.4 Further, the Ombudsman notes that, in its decision of 4 April 2006 on the complainant's Article 90(2) complaint, ALDE informed the complainant, among other things, that "[t]his grid, which you request, is the following: it provides for the evaluation of the content of the essay on a scale of 0 to 30 points and of the linguistic level on a scale of 0 to 10 points."(17)

The Ombudsman also notes that, in its opinion on the present complaint, Parliament stated that the grid was developed in conformity with point VI.A.3. of the Recruitment Notice, and repeated that it provided for the evaluation of the content of the essay on a scale of 0 to 30 points and of the linguistic level thereof on a scale of 0 to 10 points.

1.5 On the basis of the facts summarised in points 1.3 and 1.4 above, the Ombudsman understands that the marking grid in the present case was a document developed by the Selection Committee, established prior to the tests in question and intended to guide the future marking of those tests by laying down the weighting of different parts of the test. However, the Ombudsman also notes that, in his complaint, the complainant made it clear that he did not consider that marking grid to be detailed enough and claimed that Parliament should provide him with a detailed one.

In this regard, the Ombudsman refers to the information that ALDE gave to the complainant during the exchange of correspondence with him, as well as the information that Parliament provided in the course of the present inquiry. On the basis of this information, the Ombudsman points out that the marking grid established by the Selection Committee provided for the evaluation of the content of the essay on a scale of 0 to 30 points and of the linguistic level thereof on a scale of 0 to 10 points, and that no other marking grid exists. Thus, the Selection Committee has chosen to mark the essays on the basis of a marking grid identical to the grid contained in point VI.A.3. of the Recruitment Notice, without having developed that grid in more detail.

On the basis of the above, the Ombudsman notes that Parliament cannot provide the complainant with what he would consider to be a detailed marking grid, since it appears that such a "detailed" grid does not exist.

1.6 The Ombudsman notes Parliament's reference, in its opinion, to the case-law according to which a Selection Board disposes of a wide margin of discretion as regards the methods by which it chooses to correct tests. This case-law also provides that a Board's correction methods can be reviewed by the Community Courts only to the extent necessary to ensure equal treatment of candidates and the objectivity of the choice made among them(18).

In this context, the Ombudsman considers that the complainant has not submitted any evidence or argument to show that (i) the Selection Committee, by choosing to mark the essays on the basis of a marking grid that was identical to the one contained in point VI.A.3. of the Recruitment Notice, acted outside its wide margin of discretion, or (ii) the marking grid used by the Selection Committee did not enable it to carry out a comparative assessment of the candidates' capabilities and ensure the equal treatment of the candidates and the objectivity of the choice made among them.

1.7 Further, the Ombudsman notes Parliament's statement that the criteria for marking the written tests were defined prior to the tests. Parliament also referred to the case-law according to which, at the stage of assessing the candidates' capabilities, the Selection Board's proceedings are covered by the secrecy inherent in the comparative nature of those proceedings, as are the marking criteria(19).

In this regard, the Ombudsman notes the fact that the president of the Selection Committee informed the complainant, by letter of 13 January 2006, of the reasons why his essay did not attain the pass-mark. These were:

1. Failure to attain the minimum level of political analysis and appropriate knowledge of the topics required of a political adviser of ALDE;
2. Lack of a critical approach in the essay, brevity and inconsistent conclusions, which display an inability to analyse complex phenomena of political parties in European society;
3. Absence of the historical background of the crisis of traditional political parties in Europe and failure to mention the evolution of the newly established European political parties; and
4. Absence of (i) the perception of these phenomena by citizens, and (ii) new ideas as to how to improve the connection between political parties and European society, as broadly understood.

1.8 In the Ombudsman's view, Parliament's above explanations provided to the complainant show that his essay was marked on the basis of criteria which were defined prior to the tests and which were consistent with the purpose of written test A.3. ( essay) as defined in point VI.A.3. in conjunction with point II. of the Recruitment Notice. That purpose was to assess the candidates' drafting capabilities, the level of knowledge, as well as the linguistic quality necessary for assisting the members of ALDE in carrying out their functions. These functions include: participation in the legislative work of Parliamentary committees; political advice; preparation of coherent Parliamentary positions in the principal fields of activity of the European Union; organisation and follow-up of meetings; information and communication tasks; as well as any activity necessary for the good functioning of ALDE. Further, according to the same point II. of the Recruitment Notice, the post requires good knowledge of political systems within the European Union.

Therefore, the Ombudsman considers that the complainant was in possession of comprehensive information that enabled him to understand the criteria on the basis of which his essay was marked. For the same reasons, the Ombudsman has no reason to doubt the factual existence of the marking criteria.

1.9 Finally, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate to address the complainant's concerns relating to the marking and re-examination of his essay.

First, the Ombudsman recalls the complainant's argument, made in his Article 90(2) complaint, that he had his essay re-read by an expert in the English language who considered that the essay deserved a mark corresponding to at least 50%. In this regard, the Ombudsman points out that the complainant's essay obtained, as regards its linguistic quality, 6 points out of 10. Therefore, in the Ombudsman's view, the complainant's argument only confirms Parliament's position that no irregularity has been revealed in the marking of his essay.

Second, the Ombudsman notes the complainant's doubts, expressed in his Article 90(2) complaint and his observations on Parliament's opinion, whether, in light of the promptness of the Selection Committee's reply of 8 December 2005 to his request for re-examination of 7 December 2005, his essay was indeed re-examined by the Selection Committee on 8 December 2005. In this regard, the Ombudsman points out that Parliament never argued that, on 8 December 2005, the complainant's essay was re-examined by all four members of the Selection Committee. On the contrary, it appears from the available evidence that, following the complainant's request of 7 December 2005, his essay was immediately re-examined by the president of the Selection Committee together with one other member of the Committee, namely, the representative of Parliament's Staff Committee. On the basis of the same evidence, it also appears that, in addition, following the complainant's Article 90(2) complaint, his essay was re-examined by all four members of the Selection Committee.

1.10 In light of all the above, the Ombudsman finds no instance of maladministration as regards the complainant's allegation and considers that his claims cannot be sustained.

2 Conclusion

The Ombudsman concludes that the inquiry into this complaint has not revealed an instance of maladministration. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The President of Parliament will be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) A copy of this letter was provided by Parliament in the course of the present inquiry.

(2) A copy of that letter was sent to the Ombudsman only by Parliament, as an annex to its opinion. The content thereof is thus summarised in section "Parliament's opinion" below.

(3) Case T-19/03 Konstantopoulou v Court of Justice [2004] ECR-SC I-A-25 and II-107, paragraph 60.

(4) A copy of the Recruitment Notice was attached to Parliament's opinion. Translation from French by the Ombudsman's services.

(5) The Ombudsman notes that the error, in counting or typing, in this line has been neither addressed nor contested by the complainant. It is thus not dealt with in the present inquiry.

(6) Translation from French by the Ombudsman's services.

(7) Case T-24/01 Staelen v Parliament [2003] ECR-SC I-A-79 and II-423, paragraph 47.

(8) Case T-291/45 Pimley-Smith v Commission [1995] ECR-SC I-A-209 and II-637, paragraph 26.

(9) Case T-237/95 Carbajo Ferrero v Parliament [1997] ECR-SC I-A-141 and II-429, paragraph 101.

(10) Case T-19/03 Konstantopoulou v Court of Justice [2004] ECR-SC I-A-25 and II-107, paragraphs 28 - 30.

(11) Case T-19/03 Konstantopoulou v Court of Justice, cited above, paragraph 60.

(12) Case T-19/03 Konstantopoulou v Court of Justice [2004] ECR-SC I-A-25 and II-107, paragraph 60.

(13) Case T-19/03 Konstantopoulou v Court of Justice, cited above, paragraphs 28 - 32.

(14) See note 5 above.

(15) Translation from French by the Ombudsman's services.

(16) Translation from French by the Ombudsman's services.

(17) Translation from French by the Ombudsman's services.

(18) Case T-19/03 Konstantopoulou v Court of Justice [2004] ECR-SC I-A-25 and II-107, paragraph 60.

(19) Case T-19/03 Konstantopoulou v Court of Justice, cited above, paragraphs 28 - 30.