D 0007/05 of 17.07.2006

I. Details of the marking within the meaning of Rule 6(1) of the implementing provisions (IP) to the Regulation on the European qualifying examination for professional representatives (REE) are deemed to include sufficient sub-division of the maximum achievable mark and the candidate’s overall mark into submarks, and an indication of the substantive and legal issues for which those sub-marks were awarded (point 9 of the reasons).

II. In producing schedules of marks there has to be a trade-off between their purpose of ensuring uniform marking (Article 16 REE) and the need also to allow for fair marking of answers which deviate from the scheme but are at least reasonable and competently substantiated. The schedules must therefore leave some room for manoeuvre and – merely – be sufficiently detailed to constitute details of the marking within the meaning of Rule 6(1) IP allowing candidates to verify, on the basis of documents published or made accessible, whether the marking of their answers infringed marking principles the respect of which is subject to review by the Disciplinary Board of Appeal (point 13 of the reasons).

III. On the issue of whether the absence of an obligation to substantiate a negative examination decision other than as required by Rule 6(1) of the IP to the REE contravenes higher-ranking legal principles, see point 25 ff of the reasons.