# Decision of the European Ombudsman on complaint 1768/2001/IP against the European Parliament
- Författare: Europeiska ombudsmannen
- Datum: null
- [URL](https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/sv/decision/sv/1655)
---
Strasbourg, 24 July 2002

Dear Mr G.,

On 26 November 2001, you made a complaint to the European Ombudsman concerning
the handling of your application to open competition EUR/A/158/2000 by
the European Parliament. On 29 December, you sent a further letter to
supplement your complaint.

On 11 January 2002, I forwarded the complaint to the President of the
European Parliament. The Parliament sent its opinion on 12 April 2002.
I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which I
received on 23 May 2002.

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

THE COMPLAINT
-------------

On 28 June 2000, the complainant applied to participate in open competition
EUR/A/158/2000 organised by the European Parliament and published in Official
Journal C 147 A7 01 of 26 May 2000.

By letter of 17 October 2001, the competition services of the Parliament
informed the complainant that he was not admitted to the competition because
of lack of professional experience. A reason was given with a reference
to point III.B.2.b) and c) of the competition notice. It requests that
candidates must have obtained a university degree and have successively
completed at least two years' professional experience of a level equivalent
to one corresponding to the nature of duties foreseen in title II of the
competition notice.

On 2 November 2001, the complainant, who considered that his candidature
was not properly assessed, asked the Selection Board to re-examine it.
In its reply of 14 December 2001, the Selection Board stated that a re-examination
of the complainant's candidature was carried out and reaffirmed the decision
not to admit the complainant to the open competition.

In his complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that *(i)*
the Parliament failed to reply to a fax he sent on 18 January 2001; *(ii)*
by replying in French to his further faxes of 25 April and 6 September
2001, although they were addressed in Italian, the Parliament's services
breached the principle of good administration that every person may write
to the institution of the Union in one of the languages of the Treaties
and must have an answer in the same language; *(iii)* the Selection
Board's statement that he did not justify the 2 years professional experience
was not founded, since he provided a copy of his letter of engagement
with the "Banca popolare di Bergamo", as well as a copy of his first and
last salary slip, as foreseen in the competition notice.

THE INQUIRY
-----------

**The Parliament's opinion**   

The complaint was forwarded to the European Parliament for an opinion.

As regards the alleged lack of reply to the complainant's fax of 18 January
2001, the Parliament stated that on 17 January 2001, its services sent
an acknowledge of receipt of the complainant's application of 28 June
2000. In the Parliament's opinion, this letter should therefore be considered
as a reply to the fax of 18 January 2001.

As regards the use of the French language in the reply to the complainant's
faxes of 25 April and 6 September 2001, the Parliament put forwarded that
there was only one Italian speaking official in the competition services.
Some replies to phone calls or faxes written in Italian were therefore
given in another language among those known by candidates, according to
the information given in their application form. The complainant indicated
that he had a good knowledge of French. The competition services therefore
replied to his faxes in French. The Parliament underlined that these replies
were not official letters, but only short notes by which the competition
services informed the complainant that no information was available concerning
the examination of the applications and concerning the calendar of the
competition. The Selection Board started its works on 7 June 2001 and
concluded the examination of the application in October 2001. In view
of the large number of applications received, it was decided not to send
any formal letter to all candidates until the Selection Board would examine
all the applications. On 17 October 2001, the Selection Board sent the
official letter to the complainant about the decision not to admit him
to the competition. This letter was written into Italian.

As regards the rejection of the complainant's candidature to the open
competition, the Parliament firstly pointed out that the documents concerning
his professional experience which the complainant enclosed to his complaint
to the Ombudsman had not been sent to the Parliament. Secondly, it stated
that following the complainant's request by letter of 2 November 2001,
the Selection Board reviewed his file. It appeared that the complainant
had provided only the engagement letter by the Banca Popolare di Bergamo,
dated 8 January 1998, which concerned a temporary contract for a replacement.
No further evidences about the length of his contract or salary slip had
been provided. The Selection Board had therefore had to exclude the complainant
fromthe competition, in conformity with the provisions of the competition
notice.
**The complainant's observations**   

In his observations, the complainant stated that he sent a large number
of documents to support his candidature. Because of the size of the dossier,
he sent it partially by registered mail and partially by normal letter.
This was possible according to Title X.2 of the notice of competition
which foresees that the application form, the optical reader and a copy
of all supporting documents must be sent, preferably by registered mail,
no later than 7 July 2000. The complainant pointed out that it could happen
that normal letters do not reach the addressee. In case of incomplete
files, all candidates concerned should be informed thereof and given the
possibility to send the missing documents again.

The complainant made no observations concerning the other points of his
complaint.

THE DECISION
------------

**1 The alleged lack of reply**   

1.1 The complainant alleged that the Parliament failed to reply to
a fax he sent on 18 January 2001.

1.2 In its opinion, the Parliament stated that on 17 January 2001,
its services sent an acknowledgement of receipt of the complainant's application
of 28 June 2000. In the Parliament's opinion, this letter should therefore
be considered as a reply to the fax of 18 January 2001.

1.3 In his fax of 17 January 2001, the complainant asked to be informed
about the situation of his candidature. This information seems to have
been the content of the acknowledgement of receipt.

1.4 In these circumstances, there appears to be no maladministration
on the part of the Parliament as regards this aspect of the case.
**2 The alleged language discrimination**   

2.1 The complainant pointed out that by replying in French to his
faxes of 25 April and 6 September 2001, although they were addressed in
Italian, the Parliament's services breached the principle of good administration
that every person may write to the institution of the Union in one of
the languages of the Treaties and must have an answer in the same language.

2.2 In this regards, the Parliament put forwarded that there was
only one Italian speaking official in the competition services. Some replies
to phone calls or faxes written into Italian were therefore given in another
language among those known by candidates, according to the information
given in their application form. The complainant indicated that he had
a good knowledge of French. The competition services therefore replied
to his faxes in French. The Parliament underlined that these replies were
not official letters, but only short notes by which the competition services
informed the complainant that no information was available concerning
the examination of the applications and concerning the calendar of the
competition.

2.3 According to the content of Article 21 of the Treaty establishing
the European Community and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights
of the European Union, proclaimed in Nice in December 2000, every person
may write to the institutions of the Union in one of the languages of
the Treaties and must receive an answer in the same language.

2.4 The Ombudsman notes that in this case, the use of a different
language by the competition services from that chosen by the complainant
for his correspondence, was made with the aim of providing the complainant
with a prompt reply and only for short explanatory notes. All the official
correspondence with the complainant was maintained in Italian.

2.5 In these circumstances, there appears to be no maladministration
on the part of the Parliament as regards this aspect of the case.
**3 The assessment of the complainant's candidature**   

3.1 The complainant alleged that the Selection Board's statement that
he did not justify the 2 years professional experience was not founded,
since he provided a copy of his letter of engagement with the "Banca popolare
di Bergamo", as well as a copy of his first and last salary slip, as foreseen
in the competition notice.

3.2 The Parliament pointed out that the documents concerning his
professional experience which the complainant enclosed to his complaint
to the Ombudsman had not been sent to the Parliament. The Selection Board
had therefore had to exclude the complainant from the competition, in
conformity with the requirement of the competition notice.

3.3 The complainant stated that, because of the size of the dossier,
he sent it partially by registered mail and partially by normal letter.
Furthermore, he pointed out that it could happen that normal letters do
not reach the addressee. In case of incomplete files, all candidates concerned
should be informed thereof and given the possibility to send the missing
documents again.

3.4 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 competition notice. According
to the Staff Regulations, the basic function of a competition notice 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[(1)](#(1)){#Footnote1}.

3.5 The notice of competition EUR/A/158/2000 indicated all the necessary
conditions to be met by the applicants and concerning how to present the
applications.

From the information available to the Ombudsman, it appears that there
is no evidence that the Selection Board exceeded his powers when assessing
the complainant's candidature or that it has not acted in accordance with
the notice of competition when deciding that the complainant's application
could not be accepted on the ground that he did not fulfil the requisites.

3.6 The Ombudsman considers that the explanations provided by the
European Parliament are reasonable and that the complainant has not provided
sufficient evidence to establish his allegation.

In these circumstances, there appears to be no maladministration on the
part of the Parliament 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)](#Footnote1){#(1)} Case T - 158/89 Van Hecken v.
Economic and Social Committee \[1991\] ECR II-1341