Background to the complaint

1. The complainant participated in a selection procedure organised by the EU Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) to recruit contract staff^[1]. EASME informed the complainant that his application had not been given a sufficiently high score for him to be admitted to the next stage of the selection procedure.

2. The complainant then asked EASME to review his score. He also asked for access to the “file recording the formal results of the assessment of [his] candidature and of those who have been admitted to the written test”.

3. In its reply to the complainant, EASME stated that all applications had been marked by the individual `selection committee´^[2] members. These marks were then added together and translated into a percentage, which constituted the final total score per candidate. EASME argued that the scores per selection criterion are part of the selection committee’s decision-making process which is strictly confidential. EASME informed the complainant that the selection committee had re-examined his application and confirmed that his mark was 80%. The threshold to be shortlisted for an interview and written test was set at 90%. Other applicants had been considered more suitable for the post ”from an operational point of view”.

4. Dissatisfied with this response, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in July 2018.

The inquiry

5. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complaint, in which the complainant expressed the concerns that 1) EASME was wrong not to disclose information on the assessment of his individual application and the assessment of other applications; 2) the selection criteria used by EASME when assessing his application were not consistent with the ‘call for expression of interest’^[3]; and 3) EASME had not assessed his application correctly. The complainant wished EASME to reconsider his application, by applying the selection criteria in the call for expression of interest, and to invite him to the next stage of the selection procedure. 

6. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman’s inquiry team held a meeting with EASME, during which it obtained information about the assessment process as well as about the evaluation of the complainant’s application. The Ombudsman’s inquiry team also inspected EASME´s file on the issue. The inquiry team’s report on the inspection meeting was sent to the complainant for comments. The complainant did not make any comments.

On the non-disclosure of information related to other applicants

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

7. The complainant argued that giving access to the assessment of all applicants would allow any applicant to check whether competing applicants, especially those already working for EASME, were favoured.

The Ombudsman's assessment

8. The proceedings of a selection committee are covered by secrecy to protect it from any external pressure and, thus, to allow it to do its work independently and objectively. This secrecy precludes disclosure of details relating to the selection committee’s individual or comparative assessments of the participants in staff selection procedures^[4]. EASME was thus right not to disclose information on the assessment of other applicants.

On the assessment of the complainant´s application

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

9. The complainant considers that EASME was wrong to refuse him detailed information on the assessment of his application. He also argues that the call for expression of interest did not mention that “operational” skills would be decisive for the assessment.

The Ombudsman's assessment

10. A selection committee has a wide margin of discretion when assessing the knowledge and abilities of applicants based on the selection criteria set out in the call for expression of interest^[5]. The margin of discretion given to the selection committee means that the assessment done by the selection committee can be questioned only in case of a manifest error.

11. In this case, EASME initially provided the complainant with his total score only and not with the breakdown of his score per selection criterion. However, during the inspection meeting with the Ombudsman´s inquiry team, EASME described in detail how the selection committee had assessed the complainant´s application against each of the selection criteria. EASME also explained how it had determined his final score and what it meant by ”from an operational point of view”.

12. The Ombudsman finds that EASME´s explanations, which were provided to the complainant in the inspection meeting report, are adequate. The aspect of the complaint which concerns the information given to the complainant about the assessment of his application has thus been settled.

13. The explanations provided by EASME at the inspection meeting confirm that the statement that other applicants were considered more suitable for the post ”from an operational point of view” was consistent with the applicable selection criteria. There is nothing in the information obtained during the inspection meeting that suggest a manifest error in the selection committee´s substantive assessment of the complainant´s application. The complainant’s request that his application be reconsidered will therefore not be pursued further by the Ombudsman.

Conclusions

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

The Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises has settled the issue of providing clarifications on the assessment of the complainant’s application.

There was no maladministration by the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in how it assessed the complainant´s application and how it handled his request for information about the assessment of other applications.

The complainant and EASME will be informed of this decision.

 

Emily O'Reilly

European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 27/05/2019

 

[1] Contract agents are recruited to do manual or administrative support–service tasks or to provide additional capacity in specialised fields where an insufficient number of civil servants with the required skills are available. Contract staff are typically employed for a fixed maximum period, often with a shorter initial contract of 6-12 months, depending on the type of job. See: https://epso.europa.eu/help/faq/2038_en

[2] Each selection procedure has a selection committee (or ‘selection board’) which is responsible for selecting candidates at each stage, based on predetermined criteria, and drawing up the final list of successful candidates.

[3] The call for expression of interest announces the job opening, giving full details of the profile, the eligibility criteria and the selection procedure.

[4] See, by analogy, judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 December 2012, Mata Blanco v Commission, F-65/10, paragraph 106 (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=131681&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3074228)

[5] See, for example, by analogy, judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 February 2004, Konstantopoulou v Court of Justice, T-19/03, paragraph 43 (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?text=&docid=48932&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2147799).