The background to the complaint

1. In July 2013, the complainant wished to apply for the vacant post of healthcare professional at the European Medicines Agency (the 'EMA') which was announced on the Agency's website through Vacancy Notice EMA/AD/350. Candidates had to use the application form available on that website which could be downloaded using the programme Adobe Reader. The complainant uses the most recent version of Adobe Reader, that is, version XI. Despite this, she was not able to open the Agency's application form and, as a result, she could not apply for the post.

2. On 13 July, she contacted the Agency by e-mail and explained her problem. She asked which computer programme candidates should have used in order to apply for the post in question. The Agency replied on 23 July. It stated that, in order to open the application form, it was necessary to use "the latest version" of Adobe Reader. It added that, in any event, the deadline for the submission of applications was 12 July 2013 and therefore the complainant's application could no longer be accepted.

3. The complainant then asked whether the application form could only have been read by using version 8 of Adobe Reader or whether other versions, including the latest version (version XI), could have been used. The complainant emphasised that in its recruitment announcement, the Agency mentioned that "the latest version of Adobe Reader" should be used. In its correspondence with the complainant the Agency stated that, in order to read recruitment application forms available on the Agency's website, candidates must use version 8 of Adobe Reader. The Agency's webpage contains a link to that version, use of which is provided for free. The application forms are in English but may be completed in any official language of the European Union. The Agency's IT Department confirmed that the application forms are accessible both when using version 8 of Adobe Reader and when using the more recent versions of that programme.

4. A few days after the EMA replied to the complainant, she turned to the European Ombudsman.

The subject matter of the inquiry

5. The complainant alleged that (i) the Agency failed to ensure that the application form for the vacancy EMA/AD/350 was accessible, and (ii) misinformed candidates about the technical requirements on how to apply. She claimed that the Agency should improve its IT system and provide, in the future, precise information to candidates on which programmes they must use in order to apply for its vacancies. She also claimed that the Agency should re-run the application process for the vacancy in question.

The inquiry

6. The Ombudsman requested the Agency to (i) submit an opinion on the allegations and claims by the end of December 2013 and (ii) include in the opinion an answer to the following questions: (a) how many candidates were recorded as having submitted their applications successfully for the vacancy? and (b) did the Agency receive any other complaints to the effect that the application form was not accessible? The Polish translation of the opinion was forwarded to the complainant for observations which she submitted on 26 February 2014.

The Ombudsman's analysis and conclusions

Preliminary remarks

7. In its opinion, the Agency pointed out that the complainant did not follow the appeal procedure described in its document entitled "General conditions - recruitment for the European Medicines Agency as a Temporary Agent (Administrator or Assistant)", which was annexed to Vacancy Notice EMA/AD/350.

8. The Ombudsman understands that the Agency is referring to its request for review procedure mentioned in point 8 of the "General conditions - recruitment for the European Medicines Agency as a Temporary Agent (Administrator or Assistant)". Indeed, the complainant did not make use of the request for review procedure. The Ombudsman notes, however, that point 8 makes it clear that the request for review may be submitted by candidates who "feel that a mistake has been made regarding eligibility". The complainant did not reach that stage because she could not submit her application at all. In the circumstances, she followed the (correct) advice given by the EMA in the above-mentioned point 8 that "before contacting the Ombudsman, candidates must have submitted a complaint/appeal to EMA and receive a negative reply by EMA". Indeed, the complainant complained to the EMA on 13 July 2013, submitting that she could not make use of the application form and the EMA replied (negatively) ten days later. In light of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the complaint to her was admissible pursuant to Article 2.4 of the Statute[1].

A. Alleged failure to ensure that the application form could be downloaded easily, alleged wrong information in this respect and related claims

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

9. In its opinion, the Agency stated that together with each selection procedure announcement, it publishes "detailed" guidance on how to submit the application electronically ('the Guidelines'). It annexed the Guidelines to the opinion. The application process is the same for all EMA selection procedures.

10. The Agency also stated that it is willing to improve its IT system in order to make it even more user-friendly. However, given that no other technical difficulties were reported in respect of the procedure concerning the vacancy in question, there is no justification to begin it afresh. It informed the Ombudsman that it received 182 applications for the vacancy in question and no other complaints were made.

11. In her observations, the complainant welcomed the Agency's statement that it is ready to improve its IT system. She noted that the possibility of reading the application form also depends on which web browser is used. Google Chrome, for instance, does not read the Agency's application forms. The complainant argued that the Agency should inform all candidates specifically about this and other technical requirements they need to comply with in order to apply for its vacancies. In her view, the number of applications received for the vacancy in question (182) is small compared to the number of applications received by other institutions for vacancies they announce. This small number may be the result of difficulties encountered in accessing the Agency's application forms.

The Ombudsman's assessment

12. Before taking a stance on the complainant's allegations, the Ombudsman carefully read the Guidelines. The relevant instruction reads: "You need the latest version of Adobe Reader for the application form to work correctly. Download the latest version for free from Adobe Reader download [link]."

13. It is indisputable that that link directed applicants to version 8 of Adobe Reader only. Nevertheless, the EMA expressed the view that, since the application form could be downloaded by means of version 8 of Adobe Reader, it could also be downloaded by means of the later versions of that programme, such as the programme the complainant used. The Ombudsman's IT Department confirmed this view.

14. In light of the above, there is no possibility for the Ombudsman to clarify why, when using the latest version of Adobe Reader, the complainant was not able to download the Agency's application form. In any event, the complainant did not demonstrate that this impossibility was imputable to the Agency. On the other hand, the Agency argued that all those who applied for the post except the complainant were able to use the application form. The Ombudsman therefore concludes that there was no maladministration as regards the allegation that the application form regarding Vacancy Notice EMA/AD/350 was not accessible. As a result, the related claim that the Agency should begin the application process afresh for the vacancy in question cannot be sustained. The complainant's submission that the number of applicants was small compared to other competitions is not relevant for this conclusion: each competition should be dealt with on its merits.

15. In light of the observations in point 13 above, the Ombudsman also concludes that the information provided to candidates by the Agency was sufficient to enable them to apply. She therefore concludes that there was no instance of maladministration as regards the allegation that the Agency misinformed candidates about the technical requirements on how to apply.

16. Notwithstanding the above conclusion, the Ombudsman would like to emphasise that the Institutions should endeavour to constantly improve communication with candidates. Indeed, as noted by the complainant in her observations, many technical aspects are relevant for the successful downloading of application forms and it would be useful for candidates to be aware of them. The Ombudsman will therefore make a further remark to this effect below. The Ombudsman is satisfied that, in its opinion, the Agency declared its readiness to improve the information available to candidates. In this way, the Agency positively replied to the complainant's claim that it should improve its IT system.

B. Conclusions

On the basis of the inquiry into this complaint, the Ombudsman closes it with the following conclusion:

There was no maladministration.

The complainant and the EMA will be informed of this decision.

Further remark

The EMA could consider providing candidates with detailed information on the technical devices they need to use in order to successfully download the Agency's application forms.

 

Emily O'Reilly

Done in Strasbourg on 20 May 2014

---

[1] Article 2.4 of the Decision of the European Parliament on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties: "A complaint ... must be preceded by the appropriate administrative approaches to the institutions and bodies concerned."