7. After ruling upon the admissibility of the review, the Administrative Board of Review shall express an opinion within a period appropriate to the urgency of the matter and no later than two months from the receipt of the request and remit the case for preparation of a new draft decision to the Supervisory Board.

In addition to those two e-mails, on 27 May 2009 the applicant submitted an initial request for review, asking the selection board to reconsider its original decision regarding the marking of her written test (b) – a request for review in which the applicant was successful – and on 10 July 2009 she submitted a second request for review, regarding written test (c), following which the board upheld its marking of the test in question, as notified to the applicant by letter of 23 July 2009, but did not reply to her request for access to her marked written test (c) and the personal evaluation sheet for that test drawn up by the selection boa ...[+++]rd.

By letter of 2 July 2009, sent on behalf of the chair of the selection board for the competition, EPSO informed the applicant that her e-mail of 14 May 2009 had been considered to be a request for review of her written test (b), that, after reviewing that test, the board had decided to mark her written test (c), and that the result obtained in that test, namely18/40, had been below the pass mark of 20/40 required for her to be admitted to the oral test.

30. Recalls that, since 1998, Parliament has called for a review of the 1989 Interinstitutional Agreement on strengthening the right of petition ; reiterates its urgent requests for the Council and the Commission to undertake that review with a view to establishing a more effective means of redress and defining a clear and coherent framework for essential cooperation between the institutions in the area concerned;

27. Recalls that since 1998 Parliament has called for a review of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 1989; reiterates its urgent requests for the Council and the Commission to undertake this review with a view to a more effective means of redress and defining a clear and coherent framework for essential cooperation between the institutions in the area concerned;

26. Recalls that since 1998 the European Parliament has called for a review of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 1989; reiterates its urgent requests for the Council and the Commission to undertake this review with a view to (deletion) a more effective means of redress and defining a clear and coherent framework for essential cooperation between the Institutions in the area concerned;