The complaint to the European Personnel Selection Office

1. The complainant applied to take part in a selection procedure organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) for the recruitment of EU civil servants in the field of taxation^[1].

2. EPSO informed the complainant that he was not admitted to the next phase of the procedure because the ‘selection board’^[2] had not considered him to have at least six years’ professional experience related to the duties, as required by the ‘notice of competition’^[3].

3. The complainant requested a review of the decision to exclude him. He considered that EPSO had not assessed his professional experience correctly and that he met the relevant eligibility condition.

The European Personnel Selection Office´s response to the complainant

4. EPSO informed the complainant that the selection board maintained its decision to exclude him. The selection board had not been able to take into account all the complainant’s professional experience, as it had not been considered fully relevant. In particular, the professional experience described in entry 4 of the complainant’s application could not be fully counted, as the selection board had considered that only 30% of the tasks were related to the duties of the posts to be filled.

5.  The complainant was not satisfied with EPSO’s response and therefore turned to the Ombudsman in March 2019. He complained that the way in which the selection board had determined the relevance of his professional experience was arbitrary, subjective and unjustified.

The European Ombudsman's findings

6. Selection boards have wide discretion in determining whether the qualifications and professional experience of a candidate correspond to the level required by the notice of competition^[4]. This means that a decision by a selection board can be put into question only in case of a manifest error of assessment^[5].

7. In this case, the notice of competition required at least six years’ professional experience related to the duties of the posts to be filled. All the duties described in the notice of competition had to do with taxation. In light of these duties, the selection board decided which type of professional experience it would deem relevant^[6]. The complainant’s main tasks as `Senior Financial Analyst´, as described by him in entry 4 of his application, seem to be related to financial policy rather than tax matters. There is thus nothing to suggest that the selection board made a manifest error when deciding that not all the complainant’s professional experience could be counted as relevant and that he therefore did not have the six years of experience required.

8. Based on the information provided by the complainant, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in this case^[7]. 

 

Tina Nilsson

Head of Inquiries - Unit 4

Strasbourg, 14/05/2019

 

[1] EPSO/AD/363/18-2 (https://epso.europa.eu/job-opportunities/competition/3351/description_en).

[2] Each selection process for permanent officials has its own selection board, which is responsible for selecting candidates at each stage and for drawing up the final list of successful candidates. More information at: https://epso.europa.eu/help/faq/2047_en

[3] The notice of competition sets out the criteria and rules applying to the selection procedure.

[4] Judgement of the Court of First Instance of 11 February 1999, Mertens v Commission, T-244/97, paragraph 44 (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?text=&docid=44421&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1825894).

[5] Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 May 2005, De Stefano v Commission, T-25/03, paragraph 34 (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=59296&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3746995).

[6] Judgement of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2000, Rui Texteira Neves v Court of justice, T‑146/99, paragraph 34 (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?text=&docid=102663&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1373661).

[7] This complaint has been dealt with under delegated case handling, in accordance with Article 11 of the Decision of the European Ombudsman adopting Implementing Provisions