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 lawyer linguists.

2. In accordance with the ’notice of competition’,[2] the ’selection board’[3] assessed the complainant’s eligibility after the computer-based multiple-choice question test. It concluded that the complainant was eligible and admitted her to the next stage of the selection procedure.

3. The complainant was successful in the remaining stages of the selection procedure. However, upon verification of the supporting documents provided by the complainant, the selection board concluded that she did not meet the eligibility criteria set out in the notice of competition since she did not have a sufficient level of education. In light of this, it decided not to include her name on the shortlist from which successful candidates may be recruited.

4. The complainant asked EPSO to review its decision. Following the review, EPSO informed the complainant that the selection board had confirmed its decision not to consider her eligible for the selection procedure.

5. In July 2024, dissatisfied with the outcome of the review, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The inquiry

6. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into how the selection board had assessed the complainant’s academic qualifications.

7. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman received a written reply from EPSO and the inquiry team inspected EPSO's file relevant to this case.

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

8. The complainant noted that point (a) of the eligibility criteria, which are in Irish, requires candidates to have a degree in law (“céim sa dlí”).[4] She argued that her bachelor’s degree - a BA in Law and Léann an Aistriúcháin - qualifies as such. She contended that the vacancy notice does not require a law degree (such as an LLB or a BCL). If that were the case, a different Irish wording would have been used (“céim dlí”).

9. The complainant argued that her PhD, which she considers to be in the field of law, meant she is also eligible under point (b) of the eligibility criteria.[5]

10. The complainant also argued that the selection board should not be able to consider candidates eligible at a certain stage of the selection procedure and then reach a different conclusion after the candidate has gone through additional steps of the procedure.

11. EPSO said that the notice of competition clearly indicates that the objective is to recruit highly qualified lawyers. It added that the Irish wording used in the notice literally translates as “degree in law”. However, the same wording can also be used to describe a “law degree”. To this end, it referenced an English-Irish dictionary.[6] EPSO noted that, in any case, both expressions are just different grammatical structures with the same meaning. In light of this, EPSO considers that the complainant could not reasonably expect her Bachelor of Arts degree to meet the conditions under point (a) of the eligibility criteria.

12. EPSO added that the complainant’s PhD cannot be considered a legal qualification, as it is a PhD in philosophy. The fact that certain legal matters were covered in the context of the PhD is not sufficient to consider that the PhD is a legal qualification within the meaning of point (b) of the eligibility criteria. It noted that, in her application, the complainant herself indicated “translation/interpretation” as the type of qualification of her PhD.

13. EPSO stated that the selection board does the first check of candidates’ eligibility on the basis of the information that candidates have provided in their applications. When performing the second check, before drawing up the shortlist from which successful candidates may be recruited, the selection board assess candidates’ eligibility against the supporting documents that they have provided at the ‘assessment centre’ stage. It is thus possible that a candidate who has been considered eligible during the first check, is deemed ineligible at the second check.

The Ombudsman's assessment

14. In assessing candidates, selection boards are bound by the notice of competition, which sets out 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.[7] The Ombudsman’s role is thus limited to determining if there was a manifest error by the selection board.[8]

15. The Ombudsman considers that EPSO has provided clear and reasonable explanations that do not indicate any manifest error in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s eligibility. EPSO has also clarified the reason why the complainant had initially been considered eligible.

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

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion:[9]

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

The complainant and EPSO will be informed of this decision.

Tina Nilsson
Head of the Case-handling Unit

Strasbourg, 29/01/2025

 

[1] EPSO/AD/386/21 Irish-Language (GA) Lawyer-Linguists, https://eu-careers.europa.eu/en/job-opportunities/competition/7692/description.

[2] The notice of competition sets out the criteria and rules applying to the selection procedure.

[3] 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.

[4] Point (a) of the eligibility requirements considers eligible candidates who have a degree in law equivalent of higher than level 6 in the European Qualification Framework obtained in Ireland or the United Kingdom.

[5] Point (a) of the eligibility requirements considers eligible candidates who have a degree equivalent to or higher than level 6 in the European Qualification Framework obtained in Ireland or the United Kingdom and a legal qualification equivalent to or higher than level 7 in the European Qualification Framework.

[6] The New English-Irish Dictionary translates the sentence “he has a law degree” as “tá céim sa dlí aige”, https://www.focloir.ie/en/dictionary/ei/law+degree.

[7]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=.

[8] 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.   

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