Annual report 2002 - EOI

36 ANNUAL REPORT | 2002
with the tender’s terms of reference was checked and a award phase during which a
comparison of the eligible tenders took place. The results of the selection committees were
presented in a report to the CCAM (”Commission Consultative des achats et des marchés
de la Commission”).
The complainant’s application was considered eligible but was rejected during the award
procedure on the basis that it did not fulfil one of the five cumulative conditions in the
terms of reference, that is the required university degree giving access to doctoral degree.
The Commission informed the complainant by letter of 29 March 2001 that her application
was rejected as her diploma, a US Bachelor of science from the Mankato State
University, was not alone sufficient for the award of the contract. The complainant
contested the Commission’s decision by letter of 4 April 2001 informing the Commission
that her degree, Bachelor of Science, was equivalent to a Swedish degree,
“Kandidatexamen”, which allows for a doctoral degree and which is referred to in Annex
2 of the Terms of Reference. The complainant also informed the Commission that she had
successfully been awarded contracts with both the European Parliament and the
Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdTOU) on the basis of her US
Degree and maintained that she was eligible for the award of a translation contract with
the Commission.
After a re-examination of the complainant’s application by the Commission’s authorising
department and the chairman of the Swedish selection committee, the Commission orally
informed the complainant that according to its internal administrative practice a US
Bachelor degree is considered insufficient. Such a degree does not qualify for a recruitment
procedure for which a degree leading to a doctoral degree is necessary. The
Commission moreover compared the European Parliament/CdTOU tender and noted that
the award criteria were not the same in that the latter tender referred to only requested the
tenderer to have a university degree without requiring access to a doctoral degree. The
Commission therefore confirmed its initial position by letter to the complainant of 6 June
2001. The complainant then contacted the Commission’s authorising department twice to
discuss her point of view. The Commission again informed the complainant that the
Commission has its own equivalence criteria for degrees, that it is not bound by a statement
from a competent national authority and that the complainant could consider lodging
a complaint to the European Ombudsman.
The Commission states that the two main arguments of the complainant are firstly that the
US Bachelor of Science degree is equivalent to a Swedish “Kandidatexamen” which is
considered as sufficient for the call for tender in question as indicated in the Annex 2 of
the terms of reference. Secondly, the complainant considers that as the European
Parliament/CdTOU accepted her tender application the Commission should accept it also.
In reply, the Commission stresses firstly that the complainant did not provide a copy of the
document certifying that her US Bachelor degree is equivalent to the Swedish degree
leading to doctoral studies. The Commission informs that it visited the web site of the
National Board for Higher Education in Sweden, Högskoleverket, which indicated that the
equivalencies established by this Board mainly referred to degrees and employers on a
national level only.
The Commission secondly states that it consulted its Directorate General for
Administration (DG Admin) which confirmed that the admission to A and LA competitions
is restricted to candidates who have a degree leading to a master or doctor degrees.
In accordance with its established administrative practice it does not alone consider a US
Bachelor degree sufficient for admission to these competitions.
The Commission thirdly informs that its practice is to fix the same criteria of admission
for free-lance translators as its own LA-officials in order to reinforce the same level of
qualifications between call for tenders for external translators on one hand and competitions
for internal translators on the other. This is not the case of the European