Background to the complaint

1. The complainant took part in a selection procedure organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) for the recruitment of French-language lawyer-linguists.[1]

2. The ‘notice of competition’[2] required candidates to have a level of education corresponding to a full cycle (five years) of university studies in the French language attested by a diploma in French, Belgian or Luxembourgish law. 

3. EPSO informed the complainant that his application was not eligible because his diplomas did not meet the above eligibility condition. As such, he was not admitted to the next phase of the selection procedure.

4. The complainant disagreed and asked the selection board to review its decision. He claimed that he has diplomas in law from French universities corresponding to a full cycle of legal studies in French. He added that, in a previous selection procedure for French-language lawyer-linguists,[3] based on the same requirement, his application was considered eligible.

5. The selection board maintained its decision. It found in particular that the complainant’s university studies did not cover the French, Belgian or Luxembourgish legal system nor were conducted in French.

6. The complainant made an administrative complaint[4] to EPSO against the selection board’s decision not to admit him to the next phase of the selection procedure. He claimed that the selection board had made a manifest error of assessment as he has the required diplomas.

7. EPSO found that the selection board had not made any manifest error of assessment and rejected the administrative complaint. In particular, EPSO stated that the complainant’s diplomas did not fulfil the relevant eligibility condition because the combined duration of the complainant’s legal studies fell short of the required five years. EPSO further stated that a candidate cannot successfully challenge a decision taken in a selection procedure by invoking the results they obtained in another selection procedure.

8. Dissatisfied with the outcome of his administrative complaint, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in June 2022.

The Ombudsman's proposal for a solution

9. The Ombudsman decided to open an inquiry into this complaint because she found that the decision of the selection board to consider the complainant ineligible may not have been in line with the requirements of the notice of competition and with EPSO’s previous practice. 

10. The notice of competition stated that, to be considered eligible, candidates should have a level of education that ‘corresponds’ to completed university studies in law attested by a French, a Belgian or a Luxembourgish diploma in legal studies issued by a French-language university.[5] The indicative duration of the studies was mentioned, in brackets, as five years. Therefore, the notice of competition did not require candidates to have completed five years of legal studies, but to have completed studies ‘corresponding to’ a five-year cycle. The Ombudsman considered that this could be understood to include diplomas formally recognised as five years of studies, but obtained in less time.

11. The Ombudsman noted that the complainant holds a Bachelor’s degree in law from a French university,[6] which typically entails at least three years of studies, and a Master’s in law from a French institute of political studies, which typically entails two additional years of studies. The Ombudsman considered that the fact that the complainant completed his Bachelor’s degree in less than three years does not mean that the qualification obtained is different to nor that it does not ‘correspond to’ the same Bachelor’s degree completed over a longer period of time.[7]

12. The Ombudsman considered that it was regrettable that EPSO did not take into consideration, in its review of the complainant’s application, his results in the previous selection procedure for which he was considered eligible based on essentially the same eligibility criteria and required education qualifications.[8]

13. Based on the above, the Ombudsman proposed as a solution that EPSO ask the selection board to reconsider its position on the eligibility of the complainant for the selection procedure in question.

14. In its further correspondence with EPSO, the Ombudsman inquiry team noted that, according to annex II of the notice of competition, EPSO could ask applicants for “additional information or documents at any stage of the procedure”.

15. In November 2022, EPSO informed the Ombudsman inquiry team that the selection board had agreed to review the candidate’s eligibility in this selection procedure.

16. On 8 December 2022, EPSO contacted the complainant and asked for additional documents in order to reassess whether his educational background met the requirements of the notice of competition. It asked the complainant to reply by 13 December 2022.  

17. The complainant, in an e-mail to the Ombudsman inquiry team, took issue with EPSO’s request. He claimed that EPSO had no legal basis to request additional documents and that the request was discriminatory as other candidates were not asked to provide additional documents. The complainant considered that he had provided sufficient elements in his application for EPSO to decide on his eligibility for the selection procedure. The complainant took further issue with the short deadline provided by EPSO to reply to the request for additional documents.

18.  The Ombudsman inquiry team explained to the complainant that EPSO could request additional documents under annex II of the notice of competition, and invited the complainant to ask EPSO to extend the deadline to provide these documents if needed.

19. Having not heard back from the complainant, EPSO sent another request on 21 December 2022, and extended the deadline to reply to 6 January 2023.

20. On 19 January 2023, EPSO rejected the Ombudsman’s solution proposal. EPSO explained that, based on the information provided in the complainant’s application, the complainant had completed his Master’s degree in law before his Bachelor’s degree in law. The selection board was thus not convinced that the complainant’s Master degree from the institute of political studies was in law, given the chronology in which he was awarded his diplomas. This meant that the complainant felt short of the requirements set out in the notice of competition concerning the Master’s degree in law. EPSO also noted that the Master’s degree was issued before the reforms put in place in the context of the Bologna process,[9] and before the creation of a law school in the institute of political studies in question. Against this background, EPSO had asked the complainant for additional documents in order to re-examine his diplomas. The complainant never replied to its request. EPSO explained that, without those documents, the selection board was not prepared to re-admit the candidate to the selection procedure. EPSO considered that it was thus not able to implement the Ombudsman’s solution proposal.

21. The Ombudsman’s solution proposal and EPSO’s reply to the proposal were provided to the complainant. The complainant was dissatisfied with EPSO’s decision to reject the solution proposal. He considered that EPSO provided new reasons for the ineligibility of his diplomas, and argued that it is not for EPSO to decide whether a Master’s degree issued by a Member State is in law or not. EPSO should rely on the Member States’ classification of degrees. The complainant said that the fact that the institute of political studies changed the name or structure of its departments was independent from the Bologna process and the classification of degrees by national authorities. Regarding his failure to provide the requested documents, the complainant took issue with the short deadline given by EPSO. He explained that, when he received the second request from EPSO, he did not open it as he assumed it was a decision from EPSO rejecting his application. The complainant considered that, in any event, as he clearly met the eligibility criteria, it was discriminatory to ask him to provide additional documents.

The Ombudsman's assessment after the proposal for a solution

22. The Ombudsman found that EPSO’s explanations to the complainant were inconsistent as to why his qualifications did not meet the eligibility conditions. The Ombudsman is of the view that how EPSO handled the complainant’s request for review and administrative complaint was not satisfactory.

23. In its reply to the Ombudsman, EPSO provided a different explanation than the one given in reply to the administrative complaint as to why it considered that the complainant’s diplomas did not meet the eligibility conditions. In particular, EPSO considered that the chronology in which the  diplomas were awarded implied that the complainant’s Master’s degree was not in law. EPSO also seemed to take issue with the year in which the Master’s degree was awarded, but failed to clearly explain this argument.

24. The Ombudsman notes that the complainant indicated in his application that his Master‘s degree from the institute of political studies was in law. While a selection board may not have a complete overview and understanding of the educational systems in the different Member States, it should not decide on the eligibility of a candidate for a selection procedure based on assumptions. A selection board should ensure that any decisions taken in this regard are based on a clear understanding of the information provided by a candidate in their application. As set out in the notice of competition, the selection board could ask applicants for additional information or documents. This possibility allows the selection board, in case of doubt, to gather further information in order to take an informed decision on an application. While the selection board may make use of this possibility at any stage of the procedure, in light of the principle of equal treatment of candidates, the information or documents requested at a later stage should not replace the information that candidates are required to provide in their applications.

25. The Ombudsman welcomes that the selection board was prepared to re-examine the complainant’s eligibility for the selection procedure, in line with the solution proposal. To that end, the selection board asked the complainant for additional documents. The Ombudsman is of the opinion that, by requesting these documents, EPSO showed willingness to remedy the situation and to clarify any doubts it may have on the information provided by the complainant in his application.

26. The Ombudsman notes that the complainant did not reply to any of the selection board’s requests. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that the initial deadline set by EPSO was short, EPSO subsequently extended the deadline to reply. 

27. As the complainant failed to provide the additional documents, the Ombudsman finds that no further inquiries are justified in this case.  

28. Nevertheless, given the issues with how EPSO handled the complainant’s application, the Ombudsman will make a suggestion for improvement concerning how selection boards check the eligibility of candidates in future selection procedures.

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion:[10]

No further inquiries are justified in this case.

The complainant and EPSO will be informed of this decision.

Suggestions for improvement

Selection boards should ensure that decisions on the eligibility of candidates in a selection procedure are based on a clear understanding of the information provided by candidates in their applications. In case of doubt as to the eligibility of a candidate, the selection board should request additional information from the candidate or seek clarifications from national authorities or other third parties.

In cases where the selection board considers a candidate ineligible, it should ensure that it provides consistent and legally sound explanations to the candidate.

EPSO should inform the Ombudsman within six months of the measures it has put in place in response to these suggestions.

 

Emily O'Reilly
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 24/05/2023

 

[1] EPSO/AD/385/21 - Administrators (AD 7) French-language (FR) lawyer linguists: https://epso.europa.eu/en/job-opportunities/competition/7691/description.

[2] The EU bodies select candidates for permanent positions through the organisation of open competitions. For each of these competitions, a notice of competition is published, which contains  a full description of the profile sought the minimum requirements and indicates the different steps of the selection procedure, including tests and other assessment exercises.

[3] EPSO/AD/157/09

[4] See section ‘4.3.1. Administrative complaints’ of the notice of competition.

[5] Annex I of the notice of competition stated that “QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED PER COMPETITION [...] You must have a level of education which corresponds to completed university studies in the French language attested by one of the following diplomas in French, Belgian or Luxembourgish law: Un niveau d’enseignement correspondant à un cycle complet (cinq années) d’études universitaires sanctionné par un diplôme en droit français, un diplôme en droit belge délivré par une université francophone ou un diplôme en droit luxembourgeois délivré par une université francophone.”

[6] A ‘licence’, under the French education system.

[7] See Decision in case 303/2019/NH on the European Commission’s assessment of academic qualifications when selecting trainees: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/120028?utm_source=tw_EUomb&utm_medium=tw_organic&utm_campaign=303%2F2019%2FNH

[8] EPSO/AD/157/09; See on this matter case T-115/89, Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 13 December 1990, José Maria Gonzalez Holguera v European Parliament, pragraph 29, available here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/HR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61989TJ0115  

[9] The Bologna process is an intergovernmental European reform process aimed at establishing the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). It aims to bring a more coherent higher education systems across Europe, in order to facilitate mobility and equitable access higher education: https://education.ec.europa.eu/education-levels/higher-education/inclusive-and-connected-higher-education/bologna-process

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