Annual report 2002 - EOI

DECISIONS FOLLOWING AN INQUIRY 125
THE DECISION
1 The allegation of procedural irregularities
1.1 The complainant alleged procedural irregularities during internal competition
COM/TA/99.
(a) The actions of the Commission and the independence of the Selection Board
1.2 According to the complainant, the Commission extended the deadline for candidatures
for the competition and admitted another 100 candidates to take part. As a consequence,
the Selection Board resigned but subsequently agreed to resume its work in
unexplained circumstances, which put the independence of the Selection Board in doubt.
1.3 According to the Commission, the Appointing Authority decided to extend the deadline
for candidatures and undertook to put 110 candidates on the reserve list. The Selection
Board resigned but, following a message delivered by the Director General of
Administration and Personnel, decided to withdraw its resignation and to resume its work.
The resignation and the resumption of work of the Selection Board appear therefore to be
explained. No uncertainty consequently persists about the independence of the Selection
Board since it decided on its own to withdraw its resignation.
1.4 The Ombudsman notes that in its complementary opinion, the Commission stated that
the Director General of Administration and Personnel DG informed, by e-mail dated 2
December 1999, all the members of staff of the Commission of his decision to extend the
deadline for candidatures. The Ombudsman considers that the extension of the deadline
for candidatures constitutes a substantial change in the conditions under which the notice
of competition was published. In the light of the information of the file, it appears that
after the notice of competition was published on 5 July 1999, the Commission made a
corrigendum on 30 July 1999 probably about a different matter. The Ombudsman takes the
view that the Commission should have made another corrigendum to the notice of competition
in order to extend the deadline for candidatures as this change alters substantially the
notice of competition. Its failure to do so was an instance of maladministration. The
Ombudsman will make a critical remark on this point.
1.5 Moreover, the Ombudsman also notes that the Commission argued, in its complementary
observations, that the purpose of its undertaking to put 110 candidates on the
reserve list was to have regard to the interest of the candidates. The Ombudsman considers
that, according to established case law, such a duty to have regard to the interests of the
officials falls to the Selection Board and not to the Appointing Authority. 50 By extending
the deadline for candidatures and undertaking to increase the number of candidates foreseen
in the reserve list, the Appointing Authority favoured the candidates who did not fulfil
the conditions of eligibility defined in the original notice of competition. This constituted
a second instance of maladministration. The Ombudsman will make a second critical
remark on this point.
(b) The number of candidates admitted to the reserve list
1.6 According to the complainant, the Commission admitted only 66 candidates to the
reserve list, thereby breaching an undertaking, which it had given to put 110 candidates on
the reserve list.
50
Judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 31 March 1992, Case C-255/90 P Burban
v. Parliament- [1992] ECR-I-2253- points 16,20.