Background to the complaint

1. The complainant took part in a selection procedure for the recruitment of EU civil servants, which was organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)^[1]. The selection procedure was organised to recruit health and food safety experts.

2. In June 2018, EPSO informed the complainant that he was not admitted to the final stage of the selection procedure (the assessment centre) as he had not obtained the sufficient scores in the so-called ‘talent screener’. In the talent screener, candidates have to answer a number of questions about their professional experience and qualifications. The questions are based on the selection criteria for the selection procedure in question. The ‘selection board’^[2] then assesses the candidates’ answers and gives them a score^[3]. On the basis of the complainant’s answers to the talent screener questions, the selection board gave the complainant a score that did not reach the pass mark to be admitted to the next stage of the selection procedure.

3. The complainant asked for a review of the decision not to give him a higher score in the talent screener. In August 2018, EPSO informed the complainant that the selection board had reviewed its decision and concluded that there had been no mistake in the scoring process. EPSO therefore confirmed its decision not to admit the complainant to the next stage of the selection procedure.

4. Dissatisfied with the outcome of the review, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in August 2018.

The inquiry

5. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complaint about how the complainant’s professional experience had been assessed in the selection procedure and EPSO’s alleged failure to provide the complainant with clear explanations of his scores in the ‘talent screener’.

6. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman’s inquiry team inspected EPSO's file in this case.

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

7. The complainant argued that the scores given to him by the selection board were too low, given that he had more than 19 years of relevant professional experience. In particular, he argued that the scores given to his answers to questions 1^[4], 2^[5] and 6^[6] in the talent screener did not correspond to the experience he had indicated.

8. The complainant further argued that his scores were inconsistent with the much higher scores obtained in a previous similar selection procedure^[7] in 2013, even though he had fewer years of experience at that time.

9. EPSO stated that, before evaluating the candidates’ profiles, the selection board had established evaluation criteria and a scoring grid for each talent screener question. The selection board applied the pre-established evaluation criteria and the scoring grid rigorously to all candidates to ensure equal treatment. The selection board scored the candidates’ answers to the talent screener questions based on the relevance, duration, level of tasks and responsibilities. All this had been explained to the complainant in response to his review request.

10. During the inspection of EPSO’s file, EPSO provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the selection board’s “Criteria for Talent Screener Scoring” for the selection procedure in question. EPSO explained that, regarding the complainant’s answer to question 1, the selection board considered the tasks described by the complainant to be those of an inspector, not of an auditor. According to the scoring criteria, more than two years of experience as an inspector resulted in one point being awarded. Regarding the complainant’s answer to question 2, the selection board considered the complainant to have basic experience of systems of control. More than five years of such experience resulted in two points. Regarding the complainant’s answer to question 6, declared experience in drafting one type of document equalled one point. The selection board had therefore scored the complainant’s answers on the basis of the pre-established evaluation criteria.

The Ombudsman's assessment

11. The selection board is bound by the selection criteria for the selection procedure in question^[8]. At the same time, it enjoys a wide margin of discretion when assessing a candidate’s qualifications and professional experience on the basis of those criteria^[9]. The margin of discretion given to the selection board means that the Ombudsman can question the assessment done by the selection board only in case of a manifest error^[10].

12. The talent screener aims at choosing, from among the eligible candidates, those whose profiles best match the duties to be performed. In order to make that choice, the selection board applied the scoring procedure as described above, which falls entirely within the selection board’s discretion.

13. The documents and explanations given to the Ombudsman during the inspection of EPSO’s file do not indicate any manifest error of assessment of the complainant’s talent screener answers by the selection board.

14. The fact that the complainant received higher scores in a previous selection procedure does not change this conclusion, as each selection procedure has its own selection and evaluation criteria.

15. On the basis of the above, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the assessment of the complainant’s professional experience. EPSO has also addressed the complainant’s wish to obtain additional explanations about the marks awarded by the selection board. 

Conclusions

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion:

There was no maladministration by EPSO in the assessment of the complainant’s professional experience. EPSO has also addressed the complainant’s wish to obtain additional explanations about the marks awarded by the selection board.

The complainant and EPSO will be informed of this decision.

 

Emily O'Reilly

European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 13/05/2019

 

[1] EPSO/AD/340/18, see: https://epso.europa.eu/apply/job-offers/competition/2273/description_en

[2] Each selection procedure has a selection board, which is responsible for selecting candidates at each stage, based on pre-determined criteria, and drawing up the final list of successful candidates.

[3] For more information on the talent screener, see https://epso.europa.eu/help/faq/2711_en

[4] “Do you have professional experience in conducting audit, inspection and evaluation in one or more of the following areas: food and feed safety, animal health, animal welfare and plant health, as well as areas of health protection (clinical trials for human medicines, medical devices (including in-vitro diagnosis devices for human use, and medicinal products (including active pharmaceutical ingredients))?”  

[5] “Do you have professional experience of systems of control or in implementing EU legislation in the areas referred to in question 1 obtained having worked in the public sector?”  

[6] “Do you have professional experience in drafting reports or other written communication documents relevant to the nature of the duties in the areas referred to in question 1?”  

[7] EPSO/AD/251/13, see: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3AC2013%2F111A%2F01

[8] The selection criteria are set out in the ‘notice of competition’, which sets out the criteria and rules applying to the selection procedure.

[9]Judgment of the General Court of 11 February 1999, Case T-244/97, Mertens v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:1999:27, paragraph 44; judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2005, Case T-25/03, De Stefano v Commission, ECLI: EU:T:2005:168, paragraph 34.  

[10] See Decision of the European Ombudsman closing the inquiry into complaint 14/2010/ANA against the

European Personnel Selection Office, paragraph 14 (decision available here:

https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/cases/decision.faces/en/10427/html.bookmark#_ftnref5); judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 May 2005, Case T-294/03, Gibault v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2005:190, paragraph 41.