Dear Mr V.,

On 12 January 2001 you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the oral test of the selection procedure COM/R/A/01/1999 organised by DG Research of the European Commission. Furthermore, you allege lack of reply to your letter of appeal sent on 1 August 2000. On 14 February 2001, I forwarded your complaint to the President of the European Commission. The Commission sent its opinion on 20 May 2001. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 31 May 2001.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant applied for the selection procedure COM/R/A/01/1999 and passed the written tests. He was invited to the oral test. At the beginning of the oral test of the selection procedure COM/R/A/01/1999 the Selection Committee informed him that parts of the texts of the oral test were not available in Swedish, only in English. Therefore, he was not able to reply in Swedish which he had chosen as his second language in the selection procedure COM/R/A/01/1999. Furthermore, he was told that it would be better to write his summary in English as the members of the Selection Committee did not understand Finnish (main language of the complainant). The complainant alleges an instance of discrimination against citizens originating from small Member States.

Furthermore, the complainant claims that the Chairman of the Selection Committee has not replied to his letter of appeal sent on 8 August 2000.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

The selection procedure COM/R/A/01/1999 was divided into four fields corresponding to the four thematic programmes of the Fifth Framework Programme. The field C of the selection procedure aimed at creating a reserve list of temporary agents for the management of research and technological development programmes within the field of competitive and sustainable growth.

Notice of selection described the selection procedure: preselection test, selection on the basis of the file of application and oral test. The oral test consisted of three parts:

a) First stage: the Selection Committee interviewed the candidate on the basis of his/her knowledge of the field, professional experience and and his/her reasons for applying.

b) Second stage:

• Presentation in the candidate's main language as specified on his/her application form of a text relating to the field specified on his/her application form written in the candidate's second language as specified on his/her application form.
• Discussion about current scientific developments in the field in the second language chosen by the candidate, as specified on his/her application form.

c) Third stage: the candidate must make a written summary of his/her discussion with the Selection Committee on two typewritten pages or three handwritten pages.

The Commission stated that the complainant had the possibility to rely on simultaneous interpretation during the entire interview in order to enable the Selection Committee to evaluate his skills and to guarantee equal treatment to all candidates. Many candidates preferred not to make use of the interpretation. They were able to use one of the languages known to the Selection Committee, mostly English. Many candidates made use of this possibility which allowed them to speak directly with the Selection Committee. Candidates were able to choose themselves which language they preferred to use, the Selection Committee did not impose a particular language on any of the candidates. The Commission noted that the Selection Committee evaluated mainly the substance of the discussion and not the linguistic skills of the candidates. Therefore, the language applied by the candidate did not affect the result.

The scientific text at the second stage, which the complainant was supposed to summarise did not exist in the second language chosen by the complainant (Swedish) and the Selection Committee considered that the complainant mastered very well also other languages. Therefore, the Selection Committee allowed the complainant to choose the text in one of the main working languages (English, French or German), which the complainant had mentioned in his application form. The situation did not harm the complainant in any way. Furthermore, the Selection Committee took into account this factor in its evaluation of this part of the interview particularly in the evaluation of the substance of the complainant's summary.

The notice of selection did not mention which language the complainant should chose for his written summary. The complainant had therefore the possibility to chose freely the language to be used. The Selection Committee did not impose the use of English.

The Commission regretted that the complainant had to wait this long before obtaining a reply to his appeal. The delay was mainly due to the reorganisation of the DG and the redistribution of tasks. The Chairmen of the Selection Committee were informed about the appeal letter and they confirmed the original appraisal on the basis of which the complainant was excluded from the reserve list.

The complainant's observations

The complainant made the following remarks:

The complainant acknowledged that simultaneous interpretation was available to the candidates during the interview at the first stage of the oral test. He has not claimed that he was forced to use English in this part of the test.

According to the complainant, the second stage of the oral test influenced most the results of his tests and led to his exclusion from the reserve list. He was only informed at the beginning of the test that he would not obtain the text in Swedish, his second language. This as such made him more nervous and affected his concentration. The test in question was limited in time. As it was a specialised text, it would have been better for the complainant to obtain it in Swedish. The complainant considered that he would have been able to assess the amount of information in a shorter period of time if the text had been available in Swedish. According to the complainant, the discussion on the subject matter should also have been carried out in Swedish.

As regards the written summary the complainant confirmed that he was not required to choose English. Finally, the complainant stated that it is important that a letter of appeal receives a reply.

THE DECISION

1 Alleged discrimination regarding the choice of second language in the oral test

1.1 According to the complaint, the Selection Committee informed the complainant at the beginning of the oral test of the selection procedure COM/R/A/01/1999 that parts of the texts of the oral test were not available in Swedish, only in English. Therefore, he was not able to reply in Swedish which he had chosen as his second language in the selection procedure COM/R/A/01/1999. Furthermore, he was told that it would be better to write his summary in English as the members of the Selection Committee did not understand Finnish (first language of the complainant). The complainant alleges an instance of discrimination against citizens originating from small Member States.

1.2 The Commission explained that at the first stage the complainant had the possibility to rely on simultaneous interpretation during the entire interview in order for the Selection Committee to evaluate his skills and to guarantee equal treatment to all candidates. This was acknowledged also by the complainant. Furthermore, the notice of selection did not mention which language the complainant should chose for the third stage for his written summary. The complainant confirmed that he was not required to choose English for the third stage.

1.3 According to the Commission, the scientific text at the second stage, which the complainant was supposed to summarise did not exist in the second language chosen by the complainant (Swedish) and the Selection Committee considered that the complainant mastered very well also other languages. Therefore, the Selection Committee allowed the complainant to choose the text in one of the main working languages (English, French or German), which the complainant had mentioned in his application form. The Commission was of the view that the situation did not harm the complainant in any way. Furthermore, the Selection Committee took into account this factor in its evaluation of this part of the interview particularly in the evaluation of the substance of the complainant's summary.

1.5 The Ombudsman notes that point II of the notice of selection provided that "the Commission takes great care to avoid any form of discrimination, both during the selection procedure and when making appointments". Furthermore, in point III.A of the notice of selection provided that "Once specified, candidates may not change the languages in which they wish to take the tests". In point V.A of the notice of selection it was stated that the "Preselection is based on a series of tests comprising multiple-choice questions intended to assess candidates' ...comprehension of a second Community language". Finally, point V.C.3 b) of the notice of selection provided that in the second stage of the oral test the candidate will be given a text relating to the field specified in the application form in the second language specified in the application form. (underlining by the Ombudsman). It appears from the notice of selection that candidates were clearly informed to use their second language in the second stage of the oral test of COM/R/A/01/1999.

1.6 Thus, the Ombudsman considers that by obliging the complainant to make use of another language than his second language in the second stage of the oral test of the selection procedure COM/R/A/01/1999, the Commission failed to respect the notice of selection and this constitutes an instance of maladministration. The Ombudsman therefore considers it necessary to make a critical remark in this regard.

2 Lack of reply by the Commission

2.1 According to the complainant, he has not received a reply to his letter of appeal sent on 8 August 2000 to the Chairman of the Selection Committee.

2.2 The Commission gave its reply to the complainant's letter of appeal in its opinion to the Ombudsman dated 3 May 2001. In its opinion, the Commission regretted that the complainant had to wait this long before obtaining a reply to his appeal. The delay was mainly due to the reorganisation of the DG and the redistribution of tasks. The Chairmen of the Selection Committee were informed about the appeal letter and they confirmed the original appraisal on the basis of which the complainant was excluded from the reserve list.

2.3 It is good administrative practice for the administration to reply to letters it receives within a reasonable period and in an adequate way. The Commission replied to the complainant's letter of appeal dated 8 August 2000 seemingly only in its opinion to the Ombudsman nearly nine months later. The Ombudsman considers that this delay was excessive. This failure by the Commission to react to the complainant's letter of 8 August 2000 within a reasonable period of time and in an adequate way thus constitutes an instance of maladministration. The Ombudsman therefore considers it necessary to make a critical remark in this regard.

3 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, it is necessary to make the following critical remarks:

The Ombudsman finds that by obliging the candidate to use another language than his second language in the second stage of the oral test of the selection procedure COM/R/A/01/1999, the Commission failed to respect the notice of selection and this constitutes an instance of maladministration.

It is good administrative practice for the administration to reply to letters it receives within a reasonable period and in an adequate way. The Commission replied to the complainant's letter of appeal dated 8 August 2000 seemingly only in its opinion to the Ombudsman nearly nine months later. The Ombudsman considers that this delay was excessive. This failure by the Commission to react to the complainant's letter of 8 August 2000 within a reasonable period of time and in an adequate way thus constitutes an instance of maladministration.

Given that these aspects of the case concern procedures relating to specific events in the past, it is not appropriate to pursue a friendly settlement of the matter. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

Yours sincerely,

 

Jacob SÖDERMAN