The complaint

1. The complainant took part in a selection procedure for recruiting EU civil servants, which was organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO).[1] The selection procedure was organised to recruit administrators in the field of external relations.

2. EPSO informed the complainant that he was not eligible to participate in the selection procedure since he did not have the necessary professional experience to meet the eligibility criteria set out in the ‘notice of competition’.[2]

3. The complainant asked EPSO to review its decision. Following the review, EPSO informed the complainant that the selection board had confirmed its decision that he did not meet the eligibility criteria.

4. Dissatisfied with the outcome of the review, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in June 2022.

The inquiry

5. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into how the selection board assessed the complainant’s professional experience.

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

The Ombudsman's assessment

7. In assessing candidates, selection boards are bound by the eligibility criteria for the selection procedure in question. At the same time, according to EU case-law, selection boards have a wide margin of discretion when assessing a candidate’s qualifications and professional experience against those criteria.[3] The Ombudsman’s role is thus limited to determining if there was a manifest error by the selection board.[4]

8. In this case, EPSO explained (see the inspection report annexed to this decision) that, for each professional experience entry, the selection board compared the contents of the work with the contents of the work done at the European External Action Service (EEAS). The board focused predominantly on verifying to what extent the actual work corresponded to the notice of competition, rather than for what type of employer the candidate had worked. The board applied a percentage when determining the relevance of each entry. The complainant’s work for a private company was given a low percentage, as the tasks described did not match closely the nature of the duties set out in the notice of competition. The complainant’s other work entries were given a higher percentage but, due to their short duration, the combined relevant professional experience did not meet the one-year threshold necessary for the complainant to be considered eligible.

9.  The Ombudsman considers that the documents and explanations provided in the context of this inquiry do not indicate any manifest error in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s eligibility.

10. It is the responsibility of candidates to provide the selection board with the information necessary for it to check whether they fulfil the conditions set out in the notice of competition. The selection board assesses the candidates solely on the basis of the information they provided in their applications.

11. A candidate’s personal belief about the relevance of his profile cannot call into question the selection board’s assessment and does not constitute evidence of manifest error by the selection board.[5]

12. On the basis of the above, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s eligibility.

Conclusions

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion[6]:

There was no maladministration in how the European Personnel Selection Office assessed the complainant’s professional experience.

The complainant and EPSO will be informed of this decision.

 

Tina Nilsson

Head of the Case-handling Unit

Strasbourg,09/06/2023

 

[1] https://epso.europa.eu/en/job-opportunities/competition/7400/description

[2] The eligibility criteria are defined in the ‘notice of competition’, which sets out the criteria and rules applying to the selection procedure.

[3]Judgment of the General Court of 11 February 1999, Case T-244/97, Mertens v Commission, paragraph 44: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/HR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61997TJ0244.

[4] 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); and judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 May 2005, Case T-294/03, Gibault v Commission, paragraph 41: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:62003TJ0294.

[5] 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, paragraph 90: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61990TJ0017; judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 January 2003, Case T-53/00, Angioli v Commission, paragraph 94:

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