Background to the complaint

1. In August 2021, the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), predecessor of the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) (hereinafter, referred to as the EEUA) published a call for expressions of interest to establish a list of external experts for deployment in the EUAA Asylum Support Teams (EASO/2021/885)[1]. The call, which will be open until May 2024, covers 76 different job profiles[2]. Applicants may apply for a maximum of eight profiles.

2. The complainant applied for a number of profiles, including profile number 16 for ‘senior case experts’ (hereinafter, profile 16). According to the requirements of this profile, applicants must have “5 years of proven experience in the area of migration and asylum, of which at least 3 years of proven experience in conducting asylum interviews and drafting opinions”.

3. On 7 March 2022, the EUAA informed the complainant that it had not included her in the list of experts for profile 16, because she did not meet the above requirement regarding minimum professional experience. The EUAA encouraged the complainant to resubmit her application once she reached the minimum length of relevant professional experience.

4. On the same day, the complainant wrote to the EUAA. She claimed that her experience fulfilled the relevant criterion, as shown in her CV. She contended that there might have been a misunderstanding and asked the EUAA to look into the matter. The complainant also asked the EUAA for information on how to update her application.

5. On the same day, the complainant turned also to the Ombudsman to complain about the EUAA’s decision not to include her in the list of experts for profile 16. The complainant also claimed that the relevant EUAA online application tool did not allow her to update her application, despite the fact that the call was still open.

The inquiry

6.  At the time when the complainant turned to the Ombudsman, she had not yet allowed the EUAA sufficient time to reply to her request for review[3]. However, the Ombudsman inquiry team noted that the EUAA had not yet acknowledged receipt of the complainant’s request for review, despite the fact that the relevant timeframe had elapsed.[4]

7.  The Ombudsman inquiry team also identified certain issues in the selection procedure that appeared to be problematic or required clarification. In particular, it was not clear whether the EUAA had in place an appeals mechanism and, if so, how this was communicated to applicants and worked in practice. The Ombudsman inquiry team was also concerned that the information available to applicants about the recruitment system related to the call was not sufficient.

8. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry and asked the EUAA to acknowledge receipt of the complainant’s request for review and to provide her with an indicative timeframe for its substantive reply. The Ombudsman also asked to meet with the EUAA to clarify the above-mentioned aspects of the selection procedure.

9. In April 2022, the EUAA acknowledged receipt of the complainant’s request for review and gave the complainant an indicative timeframe for its substantive reply (May 2022). In June 2022, the Ombudsman inquiry team met with the EUAA representatives.[5]

On how the EUAA assessed the complainant’s application

The EUAA’s reply to the complainant

10. In early May 2022, the EUAA informed the complainant that, in examining her request for review, it had identified a discrepancy between the information that the complainant had included in the EUAA’s online application tool and the information contained in her CV as regards professional experience. In particular, it appeared that, while the complainant’s relevant professional experience covered multiple timeframes, not all of these timeframes were adequately reflected in the online application tool. The EUAA added that, although it is applicants’ responsibility to fill in their applications correctly, the selection committee had agreed to reassess the complainant’s application. The complainant would be informed of the outcome of the reassessment soon.

11. At the end of May 2023, the EUAA contacted the complainant again. It stated that the selection committee had found that, instead of using a separate entry for each timeframe of professional experience (as the online application tool required), the complainant had included multiple timeframes in a single entry (erroneously mentioning all her other professional experience under the “description” of tasks in that single entry). However, as the online application tool automatically calculated the exact number of years, months and days for each professional experience based on the start and end dates declared by applicants themselves, that other professional experience had not been counted. 

12. As regards the outcome of the reassessment, the EUAA informed the complainant that, in the initial assessment, the selection committee had found that she met the requirement for five years of experience, but not the requirement regarding three years of experience.[6] After the reassessment, the complainant was found to also meet the requirement regarding three years of experience. The EUAA provided the complainant with a detailed list of how her professional experience had been assessed both in the context of the initial assessment and the reassessment.

13. In light of the above, the EUAA had decided to include the complainant in the list of successful candidates for the profile 16. However, in order to avoid similar problems in future, the EUAA invited the complainant to update her online application in the correct manner, so that it adequately reflected all the timeframes of professional experience that she considered relevant for the profiles for which she had applied.

The Ombudsman΄s assessment

14. The EUAA explained in detail to the complainant how the selection committee assessed her professional experience and why it had initially rejected her application for the specific profile. The Ombudsman considers the EUAA’s explanation reasonable and adequate.

15. The EUAA subsequently reassessed the complainant’s professional experience and included the complainant in the list of successful candidates for the profile 16. The Ombudsman thus considers this aspect of the complaint to be settled.

On general aspects of the selection procedure

The issues identified by the Ombudsman

16. As mentioned above[7], the Ombudsman identified certain issues in the selection procedure that appeared to be problematic or required clarification. These are set out in detail in the Ombudsman’s closing decision in the parallel case 574/2022/KT, which concerned the same selection procedure.[8] For a thorough description of those issues, the Ombudsman’s thus refers to that decision.[9]

17.  The Ombudsman inquiry team raised these issues in the meeting with the EUAA’s representatives. Among other things, the Ombudsman inquiry team expressed the concern that it might not be sufficiently clear to applicants that only the information submitted in the online application form would be taken into consideration when assessing their professional experience. In particular, the information available at the time could lead applicants to believe that the selection committee would assess their professional experience based on the information included in both the online application form and the CV (that applicants were also required to upload).

18. During the meeting, the EUAA stated, among other things, that it was working to improve its internal procedures in place at the time, as well how it communicates with applicants.

Steps taken by the EUAA in the course of the inquiry

19. While the inquiry was ongoing, the Ombudsman asked the EUAA for an update on the issues discussed during the meeting.

20.  In its reply, the EUAA gave a comprehensive list of the steps it had taken in the meantime to address the issues identified by the Ombudsman. These are described in detail in the Ombudsman’s closing decision in the parallel case 574/2022/KT[10], to which the Ombudsman again refers.

The Ombudsman's assessment

21. As the Ombudsman acknowledged in the closing decision in the parallel case 574/2022/KT, the EUAA has taken concrete steps to improve the internal and external aspects of its selection procedure EASO/2021/885 and, in particular, how it communicates with applicants regarding all stages of the procedure (application stage, assessment, appeals).

22. Among other things, the EUAA has updated the Applicant Guide dedicated to the call, which is published on its website^[11]. The guide provides detailed step-by-step instructions to applicants about how to fill in and submit their applications using the online application tool.

23. In addition, the updated Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) related to the call now explicitly state that “[a]ll applications are assessed solely against the relevant professional qualifications and experience detailed by applicants in the various information fields contained in the online application tool. Any additional information provided in other parts of an applicant’s application (e.g., in accompanying CVs) will in principle not be taken into consideration.”^[12]

24. Ιn the parallel case 574/2022/KT, the EUAA also explained that, based on its operational needs, it carries out assessments for the various profiles throughout the year. On the date when the selection committee decides to carry out an assessment for a specific profile, the list of applicants is “frozen”; this means that no further applicants are assessed for that specific profile. The selection committee thus considers only the applicants who, by that “cut-off” date, have expressed interest in the specific profile and meet the requirements of that profile. Therefore, the EUAA invites applicants to regularly update their applications with all their latest professional experience and qualifications.^[13]

25. The Ombudsman understands that this “freezing” of the list of applicants at the time when the EUAA carries out assessment for the various profiles explains why the complainant’s attempt to update her application on the same day when she received the EUAA’s rejection letter was unsuccessful. In any event, the Ombudsman notes that, in case of questions or technical difficulties related to the EUAA online application tool, applicants have now the possibility to contact the EUAA through a functional mailbox dedicated to the selection procedure in question.

26. In light of the above, the Ombudsman finds that this aspect of the inquiry has also been settled.

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion[14]:

The European Union Agency for Asylum (EEUA) has settled the issues covered by the inquiry.

The complainant and the EUAA will be informed of this decision.[15]

 

Tina Nilsson

Head of the Case-handling Unit

Strasbourg, 18/07/2023

 

 

[1] Available at: https://euaa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/EASO_Call_Expression_of_Interest_2021_885__.pdf

[2] See https://euaa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2022-03/annex_1_expert_profiles.pdf

[3] According to the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour (‘ECGAB’) (Article 17) (available at https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/publication/en/3510), “a decision on every request or complaint to the institution is taken within a reasonable time-limit, without delay, and in any case no later than two months from the date of receipt”.

[4] According to Article 14 of the ECGAB, “[e]very letter or complaint to the institution shall receive an acknowledgement of receipt within a period of two weeks, except if a substantive reply can be sent within that period”.

[5] The meeting in this case was held jointly with that in case 574/2022/KT concerning the same selection procedure.

[6] See above, paragraph 2.

[7] See paragraph 7.

[8] The decision is available at https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/172411

[9] See paragraphs 15-18 of that decision.

[10] See paragraphs 21-30 of that decision.

[11] https://cei.euaa.europa.eu/Candidate%20Application%20Guide.pdf

[12] See FAQ 4 (emphasis in the original).

[13] See FAQ 9.

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

[15] Full information on the procedure and rights pertaining to complaints can be found at 

  https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/document/70707