The complaint

1. The complainant took part in a selection procedure, which was organised by the European Labour Authority (ELA) to recruit a human resources assistant (Contract Agent at grade FG III).[1]

2. In May 2024, the ELA informed the complainant that she was not selected to participate in the ‘assessment phase’ of the selection procedure, as she had not obtained a sufficient score in the ‘pre-assessment phase’. According to the applicable rules set out in the vacancy notice, in the pre-assessment phase, the selection committee assessed each eligible application in light of the essential and advantageous selection criteria (Section 3 of the vacancy notice). Based on this, the selection committee established a shortlist of candidates to be invited to the assessment phase. On the basis of the information included in the complainant’s application, the selection committee gave the complainant a score below the threshold required to be admitted to the next phase of the selection procedure.

3. In June 2024, the complainant contacted the ELA to appeal its decision and request a reassessment, considering that she fulfilled the criteria for the post.

4. In reply, the ELA provided the complainant with feedback on her application, namely the points received per selection criterion.

5. Dissatisfied, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in July 2024.

The inquiry

6. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complaint about how the ELA assessed the complainant’s professional experience in the pre-assessment phase of the selection procedure. Furthermore, as it was not clear how the ELA dealt with the complainant’s ‘appeal’, the Ombudsman asked the ELA to explain the relevant procedure for handling complaints and requests for reassessment. The Ombudsman also informed the ELA that the appeal section of the ELA’s recruitment guidelines[2] was neither accurately reflected in the vacancy notice, nor correct when referring to the role of the Ombudsman and the Court of Justice of the EU.

7. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the ELA’s file relevant to the case. Furthermore, the ELA replied to the Ombudsman, explaining its procedures for handling administrative complaints and taking note of the Ombudsman’s feedback on its recruitment guidelines.

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

8. The complainant argued that she should have received a higher score in relation to the following three selection criteria, given her professional experience: “Experience in tasks similar to the ones described in the ‘main tasks’ section”; “At least two years work experience, of which at least one year experience working in administration or Human Resources activities”; and “Work experience in an international or multicultural environment”.

9. The ELA explained that, due to an administrative oversight, it had initially misinterpreted the complainant’s ‘appeal’ as a request for information. The ELA had rectified this and replied to the complainant. The ELA argued, however, that it was only able to conduct a general assessment of the complainant’s request for a reassessment, as the complainant failed to substantiate her arguments that she should have been awarded a higher score. The ELA found that the complainant’s arguments merely reflected her personal convictions and could not be regarded as proof of a manifest error of assessment by the selection committee. The ELA concluded that the selection committee had acted within its wide margin of discretion in its assessment. To avoid similar situations in the future, the ELA said it would develop a standard operating procedure for handling administrative complaints.

10. Lastly, the ELA said that it would incorporate the Ombudsman’s feedback on the appeal section of its recruitment guidelines and make the necessary corrections in future selection procedures.

The Ombudsman's assessment

11. In assessing candidates in staff selection procedures, selection committees are bound by the selection criteria for the selection procedure in question, as set out in the vacancy notice. At the same time, according to EU case-law, selection committees have a wide margin of discretion when assessing a candidate’s professional experience against those criteria.[3] The Ombudsman’s role is thus limited to determining if there was a manifest error of assessment by the selection committee.[4]

12. The pre-assessment phase in the ELA’s selection procedure aimed to select those eligible candidates whose professional experience best match the selection criteria. In order to make that choice, the selection board first determined a scoring grid based on those selection criteria. The scoring grid was shared with the Ombudsman in the context of the inquiry.

13. The documents provided by the ELA in the context of this inquiry show that the selection committee applied the pre-established scoring grid for assessing the complainant’s application. The documents do not reveal an indication of any manifest error in how the selection committee assessed the complainant’s professional experience in the pre-assessment phase.

14. According to EU case-law, a candidate’s personal belief about the relevance of their professional experience cannot call into question the selection committee’s assessment and does not constitute evidence of manifest error by the selection committee.[5]

15. The Ombudsman thus finds no maladministration by the ELA on this aspect of the case.

16.  Regarding the ELA’s handling of the complainant’s ‘appeal’, the Ombudsman considers that every candidate in a selection procedure should enjoy the right to make an administrative complaint in case they disagree with a decision adversely affecting them. The ELA initially failed to consider the complainant’s ‘appeal’ as an administrative complaint. However, the ELA rectified this in the course of the inquiry and replied to the complainant.

17. In this context, the Ombudsman welcomes the ELA’s commitment to improving the information in its recruitment guidelines and its future vacancy notices by including sufficiently clear information on the available appeal mechanisms.

18. Based on the above, the Ombudsman considers that no further inquiries are justified into this aspect of the case.

Conclusions

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

There was no maladministration by the ELA in how the complainant’s application was assessed.

No further inquiries are justified regarding the ELA’s handling of the complainant’s ‘appeal’, as the ELA has eventually replied to the complainant in the course of the Ombudsman’s inquiry.

The complainant and the ELA will be informed of this decision.

Teresa Anjinho
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 08/12/2025

 

[1] See vacancy notice ELA/CA/2024/03: https://www.ela.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2024-02/ELA-CA-2024-03-HR-Assistant-%28CAIII%29.pdf

[2] See https://www.ela.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-11/ela-selection-procedure.pdf

[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/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62003TJ0025; 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=.

[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: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=47998&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5568.