Dear X,
On 16 December 1998, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the rejection of your application for competition EUR/A/127 and the alleged failure by the European Parliament to reply in writing.
On 13 January 1999, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Parliament. The Parliament sent its opinion on 25 March 1999. I forwarded the opinion to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. I did not receive any observations from you, but on 24 March 1999 you sent me a copy of a letter addressed to the Parliament's Personnel and Recruitment Service. In this letter you asked the Head of the Service to review his decision not to admit you to the competition.
I am writing now to let you know the result of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the relevant facts were as follows:
The complainant applied for competition EUR/A/127 (1)of the European Parliament for civil servants of grade A7 and A6 in the field of Information Technology and Telecommunication. The complainant was then informed by the chairman of the selection board that the application was rejected for two reasons. Firstly, the complainant did not hold a university degree in information technology as stated under Title III.B.2.1 of the notice of competition. Secondly, the complainant did not have the professional experience required covering at least two years of experience in the field of IT networks as stated under Title III B 2a and b of the notice of competition.
The complainant contested this decision. The complainant put forward that they had studied geo-physics with special relevance to information technology. The complainant also stated that they have professional experience of 10 years in the field of IT networks and therefore also fulfilled the second requirement. The complainant also stipulated that at the time when they undertook university studies, the subject "Informatik" (information technology) was still at the very beginning, and that the subject was a major part of their geo-physics studies.
The complainant was in telephone contact with a Parliament official who told the complainant on 2 December 1998 that the objection was rejected. The complainant stated that they had not received a written reply to the objection from the Parliament.
The complainant thereafter lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman.

THE INQUIRY

The Parliament's opinion
In its opinion, the Parliament stated the following:
The complainant was not admitted to the written tests because the complainant did not hold a university degree in information technology and that the complainant did not have the professional experience required, as indicated in the notice of competition.
The complainant's objection to this decision was examined by the selection board. The selection board assistant who spoke to the complainant on the telephone confirmed the non-admission to the competition.
By letter of 26 January 1999, the confirmation of this decision was sent to the complainant. The decision was justified by reference to the text of the notice of competition which stipulated the exact nature of the qualifications required for admission to the competition.
The complainant has not sent any observations.

THE DECISION

1 Rejection of complainant's application
1.1 The complainant alleged that their application for competition EUR/A/127 should not have been rejected on the grounds that the complainant did not hold a university degree in information technology and that the complainant did not have sufficient professional experience in the relevant field of IT networks.
1.2 The Parliament stated that the complainant's application could not be accepted as the complainant did not fulfil the above mentioned conditions as mentioned in the notice of competition.
1.3 The notice of competition EUR/A/127 stipulates all the necessary conditions to be met by the applicants for this competition. It follows from this, that an applicant is rejected when one of these conditions is not met. One of the conditions stipulated in the notice is a university degree in information technology as laid down under Title III.B.2.1. The complainant stated that they studied geo-physics and that a major part of this study was the subject "Informatik" (information technology). Even if the complainant's statements were correct, the complainant does not hold a degree in information technology. Thus, one of the conditions required under the notice of competition is not met and therefore, it appears that the selection board has acted in accordance with the notice of competition when rejecting the complainant's application.
2 Alleged failure to reply to correspondence
In the complaint to the Ombudsman of 16 December 1998, the complainant also stated that they had not received a written reply to the objection from the Parliament. The latter stated that it had replied to the complainant's objection by letter of 26 January 1999. Given that the Parliament has replied in writing to the complainant it appears that this matter is settled.
3 Conclusion
On the basis of the European Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to be no maladministration by the European Parliament. The Ombudsman has therefore closed the case.
The President of the European Parliament will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely
Jacob Söderman

---

(1) OJ 1998 C 125 A/10