EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/933

(2004/C 84 E/1031)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1034/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject: Irregularities in competitions organised by the Commission

There have been complaints regarding the way in which competitions organised by the Commission have been conducted to the detriment of Portuguese candidates. One recent case involves the competition published in Official Journal (1), in which the Portuguese lawyer José Manuel Barbosa Gonçalves of Viana do Castelo was a candidate. He has already submitted a complaint to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities. It seems that the selection board made serious mistakes, as regards the list of final answers, some of which were withdrawn because the questions had been withdrawn, and the deadline for appeals, as well as inaccuracies, contradictions and translation errors and obvious mistakes in the notice of competition.

We cannot run the risk of having a preponderance of candidates of a few select nationalities in the European institutions protected by means of dubious criteria.

Can the Commission therefore say what steps have been taken to ensure that all candidates benefit from the same conditions of impartiality and independence, ensuring that their competence is assessed on the basis of objective criteria?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the opinion of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2004 on the case brought by the candidate. The Court rejected all claims by Mr Barbosa. Therefore, there can be no question of the kind of irregularities imputed to the Commission. A copy of this Judgement is sent directly to the Honourable Member.

The Commission can also confirm that, in keeping with established arrangements, all possible measures have been taken to ensure the equality of treatment of all candidates who participated in the pre-selection tests and written exams of the competition referred to in the Honourable Member's question.

As is the case for all competitions, an independent Selection Board was appointed in this case in order to prepare and mark the different exam papers. This Board comprised a capable team of experienced Commission officials, covering a broad range of Community languages and working in the two fields covered by the notice of competition. The questions were carefully checked before they were sent to the Translation Service of the Commission. All exam papers — the optical reader forms on which the candidates marked their replies to the pre-selection tests as well as the written exams — remained anonymous throughout the marking process. Each written exam was marked by two markers working independently. If necessary, third markings took place before the Selection Board decided on the final mark.

In response to the assertion about a ‘preponderance of staff members from some nationalities’, in relation to this specific case, the Commission emphasises that the competition comprised two different fields (external relations — field 1 — and management of aid to non-member countries' — field 2), each resulting in separate reserve lists. The list for the first working field was relatively short and comprised 80 successful candidates. This list indicated a substantial — though far from preponderant — representation of citizens of one Member State, whereas the list for the second field, comprising 250 successful candidates, demonstrated a more even spread by nationality. The administrative procedures used, through their rigour and transparency, ensured that all candidates benefited from the same conditions of impartiality and independence. In view of the above, the Commission therefore considers that equality of treatment has been ensured throughout the whole process.

In response to the Honourable Member's more general comment about the protection of a preponderance of candidates from particular nationalities, the Commission would reiterate its obligation and the law and its policy commitment to maintaining geographical balance across the Institutions combined with the rigorous procedures to guarantee merit applied in all cases.

(1) OJ C 110 A,l1.4.2001.