The complaint

1. The complainant took part in a selection procedure for recruiting EU contract staff (profile 1), which was organised by the European Research Executive Agency (REA)[1]. The selection procedure was organised to recruit project advisors in specific research fields.

2. REA informed the complainant that his application failed to obtain a sufficient score in the ‘pre-selection’ stage of the selection procedure, and that he therefore was not admitted to the next stage[2]. In the pre-selection stage, eligible applications were screened against the selection criteria[3] set out in the call for expression of interest. The ‘selection committee’[4] then assessed and scored the information provided in the applications.

3. The complainant asked REA, by means of an administrative complaint, to reassess his application. To ensure impartiality, the complainant asked for different evaluators to reassess his application.

4. In addition, the complainant asked REA to provide him with detailed feedback. In particular, the complainant asked for: “(1) the eligibility criteria grid for [his] application; (2) points allocated to each criterion by each of the evaluators; (3) argumentation/comments as to the points of each criterion, including divergent opinions (in case of a large difference between each evaluator’s allocation of points); (4) and the pass/fail threshold for [his] profile.”

5. In its decision on his administrative complaint, REA informed the complainant that the selection committee had confirmed its decision not to admit him to the next stage of the selection procedure. It had reviewed and confirmed that his application was attributed 19.5 points, whereas the threshold for being selected for the next stage of the procedure was 21 points for the profile the complainant selected.

6. REA added that it had already provided the complainant with information as regards point 4. It was not able to provide the complainant with the other information he requested, as, in accordance with the applicable legislation[5] and EU case-law[6], this constituted “an integral and confidential part of the deliberations and work of the selection committee”, which should not be disclosed.

7. The complainant contested REA’s position about the information he requested. In particular, he argued that disclosure of the information requested under points 1 and 2 would not compromise the secrecy of the work of the selection committee. As regards point 3, the complainant argued that, since he his score was close to the threshold, his request aimed at verifying that there was no clerical error “in converting the marks of individual evaluators to an overall mark for [his] profile” if more than one evaluator had marked his profile. The complainant added that disclosure could be done anonymously, and that there thus would be no risk of external interference or pressure on the selection committee.

8. The complainant added that it was not clear from REA’s reply whether the selection committee had carried out a reassessment of his application before confirming its initial decision. The complainant contended, if the selection committee did a reassessment at all, that REA had not indicated whether different evaluators conducted such a reassessment.

9. REA reaffirmed that the selection committee had reassessed the complainant’s application and maintained its initial assessment. REA argued that the complainant’s personal conviction does not constitute evidence of a manifest error by the selection committee, or of a procedural irregularity.

10. REA stated that it was not possible for different evaluators to reassess his application due to “the legal requirement for stability of the selection committee” and to the fact that the appointed selection committee was the only authorised body appointed by the Director to evaluate the candidates in this selection procedure.

11. Dissatisfied with the outcome of his administrative complaint and REA’s further reply, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in November 2022.

The inquiry

12. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into how REA dealt with the administrative complaint and request for information.

13. In the context of the inquiry, the Ombudsman asked REA to provide the complainant with “the aggregated score per criterion”[7].

14. REA provided the complainant with his score per criterion, as well as the selection committee’s scoring grid for assessing applications against the selection criteria. REA also provided a document showing the eligibility checks of the complainant application.

15. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman inquiry team reviewed the documents and information the complainant submitted, as well as the information and documents REA provided in the context of the inquiry.

16. The Ombudsman gave the complainant the opportunity to provide comments on the documents REA sent to him. The complainant did not provide any comments.

The Ombudsman's assessment

17. In assessing candidates, selection committees are bound by the selection criteria for the selection procedure in question. At the same time, according to EU case-law, selection committees have a wide margin of discretion when assessing a candidate’s qualifications and professional experience against those criteria.[8] The Ombudsman’s role is thus limited to determining if there was a manifest error by the selection committee.[9]

18. While the complainant had doubts as to whether the selection committee actually carried out a reassessment of his application, he failed to present any evidence or concrete arguments to suggest that the selection committee did not reassess his application. REA confirmed that the selection committee had reassessed the complainant’s application, and that it maintained its initial assessment. The Ombudsman sees no reason to doubt REA’s statement. Consequently, the Ombudsman considers that no further inquiries are justified into this aspect of the complaint.

19. The complainant contended that the reassessment was not conducted by different evaluators than those that had conducted the initial assessment, and that this was unfair. REA explained that appointing different evaluators was not possible as the composition of selection committees should be maintained throughout the stages of a selection procedure. This explanation is reasonable, given relevant EU case-law[10] on the principle of equal treatment of candidates.

20. In addition, based on the information provided, which includes the selection committee’s scoring grid, there is nothing to suggest a manifest error in how the complainant’s application was assessed.

21. REA provided the complainant with the threshold for being selected for the next stage of the procedure. In the context of the Ombudsman’s inquiry, REA also provided the complainant with his score per selection criterion and thus settled this aspect of the request for feedback. REA further explained its current practice for providing feedback to unsuccessful candidates following the pre-selection stage in selection procedures. REA’s explanations as to why it could not disclose the additional information requested by the complainant are reasonable and in line with the EU Staff Regulations and related EU case-law.

22. On the basis of the above, there was no maladministration in how REA handled the complainant’s requests.

Conclusions

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusions [11]:

There are no further inquiries justified into the question whether the complainant’s application was reassessed.

The European Research Executive Agency has settled one aspect of the complainant’s request for feedback.

There was no maladministration by the European Research Executive Agency on the remaining aspects of the case.

The complainant and REA will be informed of this decision.

 

Tina Nilsson
Head of the Case-handling Unit

Strasbourg, 25/03/2024

 

[1] CALL FOR EXPRESSION OF INTEREST REA/2021/CA/PA-SF/B/FGIV/02 - Contract Agents 3(a) – FGIV (https://rea.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-11/Call%20for%20expression%20of%20interest%20REA.2021.CA_.PA-SF.B.FGIV_.02.pdf)

[2] Tests in the EPSO/CAST/P/4/2017 Project Management profile: https://eu-careers.europa.eu/en/job-opportunities/competition/2099/description

[3] The selection criteria are defined in the ‘call for expression of interest’, which sets out the criteria and rules applying to the selection procedure.

[4] Each selection procedure has a selection board or committee, which is responsible for selecting candidates at each stage, based on pre-determined criteria, and drawing up the final list of successful candidates.

[5] Article 6 of Annex III to the EU Staff Regulations: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A01962R0031-20140501 

[6] Marsili / Commission F-19/10: EUR-Lex - 62010FJ0019 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu) or to de Mendoza / Commission F-127/11 CURIA - Documents (europa.eu)

[7] In accordance with the Guidelines concerning the processing operations in the field of staff recruitment, issued by the European Data Protection Supervisor: https://edps.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publication/08-10-10_guidelines_staff_recruitment_en.pdf#page=9

[8]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; judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2005, Case T-25/03, De Stefano v Commission, paragraph 34: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62003TJ0025&lang1=en&type=TXT&ancre=.

[9] 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.

[10] Judgment of 10 November 2004, Vonier v Commission, T‑165/03, ECLI:EU:T:2004:331, paragraph 39

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