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 experts in the field of taxation.

2. In January 2019, EPSO informed the complainant that she was not admitted to the final stage of the selection procedure (the assessment centre) as she 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 her a higher score in the talent screener. In March 2019, EPSO informed the complainant that the selection board 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 March 2019.

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.

6. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman’s inquiry team inspected EPSO's file. The inspection report, with EPSO’s detailed explanations, is annexed to this decision. The complainant also provided her comments on the inspection report.

The Ombudsman's assessment

7. The selection board is bound by the selection criteria for the selection procedure in question^[4]. 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^[5]. 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^[6].

8. 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 first establishes evaluation criteria and a scoring grid for each talent screener question. This falls entirely within the selection board’s discretion.

9. It is the responsibility of candidates to prepare their applications, including their replies to the talent screener, with diligence and to provide the selection board with the information necessary for it to check whether they fulfil the conditions laid down in the notice of competition. The selection board assesses the candidates solely by considering the answers provided by them to the talent screener questions.

10. The documents and explanations given to the Ombudsman during the inspection of EPSO’s file (see the inspection report annexed to this decision) do not indicate any manifest error of assessment of the complainant’s talent screener answers by the selection board.

11. A candidate’s personal belief about the relevance of her profile cannot replace the selection board’s assessment and does not constitute evidence of a manifest error by the selection board^[7].

12. On the basis of the above, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the assessment of the complainant’s professional experience.

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.

The complainant and EPSO will be informed of this decision.

 

Emily O'Reilly
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 18/09/2019

Enclosure: Inspection report in case 571/2019/AMF

 

[1] EPSO/AD/363/18 - 2 see: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C:2018:368A:FULL&from=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] The selection criteria are set out in the ‘notice of competition’, which contains the criteria and rules applying to the selection procedure.

[5]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.  

[6] 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.  

[7] Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 15 July 1993 in Joined Cases T-17/90, T-28/91 and T-17/92, Camara Alloisio e.a. v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:1993:69, paragraph 90; judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 January 2003, Case T-53/00, Angioli v Commission, paragraph 94.