Dear Mr P. and Mr A.,
On 25 November 1998, you Mr P. made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning the Selection Board's decisions dated 9 October and 16 November 1998 not to admit you to take part in Open Competition PE/83/A. On 7 December 1998, Mr A. lodged a similar complaint concerning decisions dated 9 October and 17 November 1998. The Ombudsman, therefore, decided to join the two complaints for the purpose of his inquiry.
On 14 and 18 December 1998, I forwarded your complaints to the President of the European Parliament. The Parliament sent its opinion on joined complaints on 18 February 1999 and I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which Mr P. sent on 28 April 1999 and Mr A. on 27 April 1999.
I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.
I apologise for the length of time it has taken to deal with your complaints.

THE COMPLAINT

The complainants complain against the refusal of the Parliament to allow them to take part in Open Competition PE/83/A (Greek language administrator in the Secretariat General)(1) organised by the Parliament for which they had applied. On 9 October 1998, the Parliament informed the complainants that their applications were excluded on grounds that their professional experience was not judged appropriate for the exercise of the functions mentioned in the notice of competition. The complainants wrote motivated letters to the Selection Board asking for a review of the Board's decisions, but the Board in its decision letters of 16 November and 17 November 1998 replied with a standard letter to both complainants without taking into account the particular arguments put forward in the complainant's letters.
The complainants made the following allegations:
(i) The Selection Board rejected their applications arbitrarily without giving a reason:

- in complaint 1260/98/(OV)BB the Selection Board rejected the complainant's application on grounds that he lacked at least two years' professional experience, acquired after his university degree, of a standard equivalent to that of the duties referred to Section II of the notice of competition (Section III.B.2.b of the notice). The complainant alleges that the Board has under-valued his 10 years of professional experience as an official of the European Commission and a translator in the Translation Service;

- in complaint 1305/98/(OV)BB the Selection Board rejected the complainant's application on identical grounds on the basis of Section III.B.2.b of the notice. The complainant alleges that the Board has not taken into account his professional experience as the technical-architectural official. According to the complainant, the Board has not specified exactly what his lack of professional experience consists of.

(ii) The Selection Board replied with a standard letter to the different arguments put forward by the complainants in their individual appeals dated 14 October 1998 and 2 November 1998.

THE INQUIRY

The Parliament's opinion
The Parliament in its opinion made, in summary, the following points:
As the Parliament had not foreseen pre-selection tests in the competition, prior to the organisation of the written tests and pursuant to Article 5 of Annex III of the Staff Regulations, the Selection Board considered the applications in the light of the requirements set out in the notice of competition and drew up on that basis the list of candidates admitted to Open Competition PE/83/A.
With regard to Mr P.'s complaint, the Selection Board decided that his professional experience as a translator would not, for the purposes of this competition, be assimilated to professional experience of a standard equivalent to that of the job described in Section II of the notice of competition. This decision was applied equally to all candidates presenting this profile. The application was, therefore, not rejected arbitrarily.
With regard to Mr A.'s complaint, the reply sent to him following his appeal, which expressly referred to the requirements relating to professional experience in Section II of the notice of competition, was the Selection Board's position in response to the details supplied by the complainant.
The Parliament pointed out that it had only recently received copy of the Ombudsman's decision in the case of complaint 850/3.9.96/IJA/FIN/KT/BB which finds that selection boards should provide individual explanations to those candidates who expressly ask for it. The Ombudsman should be assured that this position will be brought to the attention of future European Parliament selection boards.
The complainants' observations
The complainants maintained their complaints.

THE DECISION

1 The Selection Board rejected the complainants' applications arbitrarily and without giving a reason in Open Competition PE/83/A
1.1 The complainants allege that the Selection Board rejected their applications arbitrarily and without giving a reason.
1.2 As the Court of Justice has consistently held, although the Selection Board for a competition based on qualifications and tests has a discretion in evaluating the qualifications and practical experience of the candidates, it is nevertheless bound by the wording of the notice of competition. The basic function of a notice of competition, according to the Staff Regulations, is to give to those interested the most accurate information possible about the conditions of eligibility for the post, in order to enable them to judge whether they should apply for it and what supporting documents are important for the proceedings of the Selection Board and must therefore be enclosed with the application(2). Furthermore, when the Selection Board decides not to admit a candidate to the tests, it is required to indicate precisely which conditions in the notice of competition are considered not to have been satisfied by the candidate(3).
1.3 The notice of competition PE/83/A indicated all the necessary conditions to be met by the applicants. One of the conditions foreseen under Section III.B.2.b of the notice was to have at least two years' professional experience, acquired after a university degree, of a standard equivalent to that of the duties referred to Section II of the notice of competition.
1.4 The Ombudsman notes that, from the information submitted by the complainant and by the Commission, it appears that the Selection Board had acted in accordance with the notice of competition when deciding that the complainants' applications could not be accepted on the grounds that they did not fulfil the requirement requested.
1.5 As concerns the obligation of the Selection Board to indicate precisely which conditions in the notice of competition are considered not to have been satisfied by the candidate, the Ombudsman notes that in its letters of 9 October 1998 and of 16 and 17 of November 1998, the Selection Board referred to the duties described in Point II of the notice and gave the complainants a reason for their exclusion from the competition.
2 The Selection Board replied with a standard letter to the different arguments put forward by the complainants in their individual appeals to the Selection Board in Open Competition PE/83/A
2.1 The complainants allege that the Selection Board did not reply to the different arguments put forward by them in their individual appeals to the Board.
2.2 The Selection Board had sent to the complainants standard letter replies on 16 and 17 November 1998.
2.3 In the context of competitions, decisions by a Selection Board to reject a candidate must state the conditions of the notice of competition, which have not been fulfilled(4). If there is a large number of candidates, the Selection Board may initially confine itself to stating the reasons for the refusal in a summary manner and informing the candidates only of the criteria and the result of the selection(5). Nevertheless, the Selection Board must subsequently give an individual explanation to those candidates who expressly ask for it(6).
2.4 In their letters dated 14 October 1998 and 2 November 1998 the complainants have expressly requested that the Selection Board reassess their professional experience in the Open Competition PE/83/A. The Selection Board replied on 16 and 17 November 1998 by identical standard letters merely stating that the Selection Board had considered the matter in its meeting of 12 November 1998, the Board could only confirm its initial decision not to admit the complainants to Open Competition PE/83/A on grounds that the complainants' professional experience does not correspond to the nature of duties described in Point II of the notice of competition.
2.5 The standard replies by the Selection Board to the complainants did not contain sufficient details to enable the complainants to understand the factors on which the Board's decision in relation to their individualised appeals had been based, and to allow for a review of the grounds on which the decision had been taken. The reply failed therefore to give the complainants adequate individual reasons for the rejection of their applications.
3 Conclusion
On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, it is necessary to make the following critical remark:

In the context of competitions, decisions by a Selection Board to reject a candidate must state the conditions of the notice of competition, which have not been fulfilled. If there is a large number of candidates, the Selection Board may initially confine itself to stating the reasons for the refusal in a summary manner and informing the candidates only of the criteria and the result of the selection. Nevertheless, the Selection Board must subsequently give an individual explanation to those candidates who expressly ask for it.

The standard replies by the Selection Board to the complainants did not contain sufficient details to enable the complainants to understand the factors on which the Board's decision in relation to their individualised appeals had been based, and to allow for a review of the grounds on which the decision had been taken. The reply failed therefore to give the complainants adequate individual reasons for the rejection of their applications.

Given that this aspect of the case concerns 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.
The President of the European Parliament will also be informed of this decision.
Yours sincerely
Jacob SÖDERMAN

---

(1) OJ C 77 A of 12 March 1998.

(2) Case T - 158/89 Van Hecken v. Economic and Social Committee [1991] ECR II-1341.

(3) Joined cases 4, 19 and 29/78 Salerno and Others v. Commission [1978] ECR 2403 and Case T -108/84 De Santis v. Courts of Auditors [1985] ECR 947.

(4) Joined Cases 4, 19, and 28/78 Salerno v. Commission [1978] ECR 2403, p. 2416.

(5) Case 225/82 Verzyck v. Commission [1983] ECR 1991.

(6) Case T-55/91 Olivier Fascilla V. Parliament [1992] ECR II-1757, par. 34-35.