Dear Mr G.,

On 17 January 2002, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning your exclusion from open competition EUR/A/158/2000. The exclusion was based on the lack of work experience.

On 28 February 2002, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the European Parliament. The European Parliament sent its opinion on 10 June 2002. I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 29 July 2002.

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

THE COMPLAINT

The complainant applied to participate in open competition EUR/A/158/2000 organised by the European Parliament to recruit A-grade officials. He was excluded on the grounds of a lack of work experience. The complainant claims that he did have it and that the Selection Board failed to take into consideration a period of time during which he studied and which, according to the notice of competition, was eligible.

According to the complainant, he studied and at the same time worked for the Municipality of Naples. The complainant considers that although studies and work overlapped, they should be considered as two distinct periods of time. This would have increased his work experience. The Selection Board in turn refused to take into consideration the period of time during which the complainant studied from the day on which he started to working.

Despite his appeals to the Selection Board, the latter maintained its decision to exclude the complainant from the open competition. The complainant therefore lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman. He alleged that the European Parliament failed to state valid reasons for its refusal to consider overlapping periods of work and studies as two distinct periods to be taken into consideration for his admission to the competition. The complainant considers therefore that his exclusion from competition EUR/A/158/2000 is illegitimate.

THE INQUIRY

The European Parliament's opinion

The European Parliament's opinion on the complaint was in summary the following:

The complainant was informed on 17 October 2001 that on the closing date for applications he did not meet the work experience criteria. A two-year experience was required. Further to two subsequent appeals by the complainant, the Selection Board twice confirmed its decision to exclude the complainant because of a lack of work experience.

The complainant had worked and studied at the same time and expected this to be considered as two distinct periods of time to be taken into account for the calculation of the work experience.

In the absence of specific provisions in the notice of competition, the Selection Board used its discretionary powers to define criteria applicable to the complainant's situation. The Selection Board decided that as far as the work experience is concerned, two activities will never exceed 100% - full time work and studies in the evening - for a period of 12 months. This principle was applied to all the candidates of the selection procedure in question, as well as in other selection procedures.

The same principle prevails for the calculation of seniority as foreseen by article 32 of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities.

The European Parliament considers that the Selection Board acted within the limits of its discretionary powers and guaranteed the equal treatment of candidates. Its decision can therefore not be considered as illegitimate.

The complainant's observations

The European Ombudsman forwarded the European Parliament's opinion to the complainant with an invitation to make observations. In his reply of 29 July 2002, the complainant maintained his allegations. He stated that in the absence of specific provisions, the Selection Board arbitrarily defined provisions which were not applicable since the notice of competition had not been amended.

THE DECISION

1 Alleged illegitimate exclusion because of lack of work experience

1.1 The complainant alleged that the European Parliament failed to state valid reasons for its refusal to consider overlapping periods of work and studies as two distinct periods to be taken into consideration for his admission to the competition. The complainant considers therefore that his exclusion from competition EUR/A/158/2000 is illegitimate.

1.2 The European Parliament stated that in the absence of specific provisions in the notice of competition, the Selection Board decided that as far as the work experience is concerned, two activities will never exceed 100% - full time work and studies in the evening - for a period of 12 months. This principle was applied to all the candidates of the selection procedure in question, as well as in other selection procedures. The same principle prevails for the calculation of seniority as foreseen by article 32 of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities.

1.3 The Ombudsman notes that the Court of Justice has held that the Selection Board enjoys a wide margin of discretion in assessing both the length and the nature of the prior professional experience of candidates(1).

1.4 In the present case, by defining criteria and assessing special situations although not specifically foreseen in the notice of competition, the Selection Board appears to have acted within its remit. The decision to apply, by analogy, an administrative practice which is also applied to officials for the evaluation of their seniority, appears to be reasonable. The Ombudsman therefore finds no instance of maladministration 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 Parliament. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The President of the European Parliament 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-00257, II-01169, paragraph 70.