The complaint

1. The complainant took part in a selection procedure for recruiting armed security and protection officers for the EU institutions, which was organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)[1]. In that context, the complainant had to take a shooting test for which he obtained 51 points. EPSO informed the complainant that he had not been admitted to the next stage of the selection procedure, as he had not obtained the pass score, which was set at 60 points.

2. The complainant considered that EPSO had failed to ensure equal treatment of all candidates and he therefore made an administrative complaint to EPSO[2]. The complainant argued that other candidates had taken the shooting test on targets different from the one that he had been given. The complainant also argued that he had scored 43 points in the shooting test and that EPSO had failed to explain why it had suddenly given him 8 extra points.

3. In reply to the administrative complaint, EPSO said that all the candidates had been given identical targets. EPSO also explained that the complainant had scored 45 points but that all candidates had been given 6 extra points to compensate for the fact that the test environment had been too dark and that the targets were of an old format.

4. Dissatisfied with the outcome of his administrative complaint, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in April 2020. The complainant named certain other candidates who, according to him, had done the shooting test on a target that was different to his. He also argued that there was an inconsistency in the score he had obtained.  

The inquiry

5. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complaint that the shooting test had not been carried out in an equal manner for all candidates and that there was an inconsistency in the complainant’s score.

6. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman’s inquiry team inspected EPSO's file relevant to this case. The inspection report is annexed to this decision.

The Ombudsman's assessment

7. The documents inspected show that the complainant and the other candidates that he named in his complaint all did the shooting test on a target of exactly the same type.  

8. The complainant’s “score sheet”, which he has signed, show that he scored 45 points in the shooting test.  

9. On the basis of the above, the Ombudsman finds no inequality of treatment of candidates in the shooting test. Nor does she find any inconsistency in EPSO’s reporting of the complainant’s result in the test. The Ombudsman thus finds no maladministration by EPSO.

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion[3]:

There was no maladministration by the European Personnel Selection Office in relation to the complainant’s shooting test in selection procedure EPSO/AST-SC/07/18.

The complainant and EPSO will be informed of this decision.

 

Emily O'Reilly
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 17/07/2020

 

 

[1] EPSO/AST-SC/07/18 - Armed Security and Protection Officers (SC1 / SC2), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1594130980489&uri=CELEX:C2018/305A/01.

[2] Administrative complaint within the meaning of Article 90 of Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:01962R0031-20200101.

[3] Full information on the procedure and rights pertaining to complaints can be found at https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/document/70707