The background to the complaint

1. The complainant is a German national who participated in a selection procedure for "Research administrators (AD6 and AD7) in the domain of Physics" (COM/AD/03/10) to be recruited by the European Commission. The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) was in charge of organising this competition. On 29 March 2012, the complainant was invited to an Assessment Center (AC) test scheduled to take place in Brussels on 27 April 2012.

2. On 3 April 2012, the complainant asked EPSO to be able to take the AC test on a different date. On 16 April 2012, EPSO replied that due to organisational constraints, it was not possible to provide a different date or assign a candidate to a different group.

3. More generally, the complainant considered that it had taken EPSO a long time to organise the competition. In particular, he complained that a year and a half had passed between the notice of competition and the date for the AC test.

4. Finally, the complainant was critical of the fact that it had taken EPSO nearly two weeks to reply to his request for an alternative date for the AC test.

The subject matter of the inquiry

5. The Ombudsman asked EPSO for an opinion on the following allegations and claims.

Allegations

1) EPSO failed to handle properly the complainant's request to reschedule the assessment centre test to which he was invited.

2) The time which expired between the notice of competition and the final examination (almost one and a half years) was excessive.

Claims

1) EPSO should allow the complainant to reschedule his assessment centre test.

2) In the long term, EPSO should accelerate its competitions.

6. As regards the complainant's allegation that EPSO failed to handle his request promptly, the Ombudsman noted that the complainant e-mailed EPSO on 3 April 2012, and that EPSO replied on 16 April 2012. Taking into account the Easter break (the European Commission and EPSO were closed between 5 and 9 April 2012), EPSO in fact replied within six working days. The Ombudsman therefore decided not to include this allegation in the present inquiry.

7. The complainant also claimed that EPSO should pay all his travel costs. However, this claim was declared inadmissible as the complainant had not already raised this matter with EPSO.

The inquiry

8. The complainant submitted his complaint on 17 April 2012. On 20 April 2012, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry by asking EPSO to submit an opinion by 31 July 2012.

9. On 27 April 2012, the Ombudsman's services received an informal e-mail from EPSO stating that [the Commission's] unit HR.DDG.D.2 would be dealing with the complaint. However, when the Ombudsman's office asked about the opinion which the Ombudsman had requested, it turned out that this transfer to the Commission had been done on an informal basis only.

11. The Commission finally provided its opinion on 8 February 2013. It was forwarded to the complainant with an invitation to submit observations by 31 March 2013. No observations were received from the complainant.

The Ombudsman's analysis and conclusions

A. Allegation of improper handling of the complainant's request to change the date of the assessment centre test and related claim

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

12. The complainant thought that he should have been allowed to sit the AC test on another date that was more convenient to him. He explained that by the time he was informed about the AC, he had already organised an important business meeting in Dresden that was scheduled for the day before the AC test; this meant that he would have to fly to Dresden from his workplace, a university in the UK, and then fly from Dresden to Brussels. It would therefore cost him in the region of EUR 1000 to travel to the AC test, of which only a small part would be refunded.

13. In its opinion, the Commission explained that all candidates had been informed on 29 March 2012 that the AC test would take place on 27 April 2012. The Commission was of the view that this left candidates sufficient time to plan their journey to the AC test in Brussels. It also pointed out that the complainant had not argued that he could not make it to the test, but merely that it would be too expensive for him. The Commission did not have enough information to make any meaningful statements on the cost of the flight from Dresden to Brussels.

14. In any event, there was only one date for the AC test for all candidates. This helped speed up the selection process, which was one of the objectives of the new type of competitions introduced in 2010. Running the AC test for all candidates on the same day also had the advantage that all candidates could be given the same test. This meant that only one test had to be given, and all candidates could be judged on the same basis. It would have been disproportionately expensive to come up with another test for the complainant only. Moreover, it would have made the complainant, who would have been the only candidate to take a different test, easily identifiable, in breach of the principle of anonymous marking. Finally, allowing him to sit the test on a date other than the single date fixed for all other candidates would have breached the principle of equal treatment.

The Ombudsman's assessment

15. Candidates in a selection procedure do not have a right themselves to decide on the date of a test. However, it is good administrative practice to give candidates a choice of dates where there are good reasons for doing so and where this does not involve a disproportionate administrative burden. EPSO does this in relation to the computer-based pre-selection tests, where candidates can choose from a range of available time slots at different test centres throughout the EU. Moreover, where AC tests are organised on different dates for a large number of candidates, as the Ombudsman has already held in case 1933/2010/BEH, "nothing prevent[s] EPSO from consulting them [the other candidates invited to the same AC test] in order to find out whether they would be prepared to accept a new test date which would suit the complainant's specific situation." That case was however particular in that the complainant was pregnant and the date of the AC test was three weeks after the expected birth date.

16. In the present case, the Commission argued that it was possible to organise only one AC test for all candidates. For the reasons set out by the Commission, this is indeed the preferable solution where possible. Moreover, the reason why the complainant asked for a different date was not such that the Commission or EPSO would have been obliged to accommodate the complainant's request. The Ombudsman therefore considers that the Commission's decision to reject his request was reasonable.

B. Allegation of delay between the notice of competition and the final examination

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

17. The complainant underlined that a year and a half had passed between the date on which the notice of competition was published (September 2010) and the date of the AC test (April 2012). He considered that this delay was excessive.

18. In the complainant's view, this delay meant that some of the applicants were likely to have lost interest in the competition.

19. The Commission accepted that eighteen months had passed between the publication of the notice (on 30 September 2010) and the day the invitation to the AC test were sent (29 March 2012). While this was a long time, it was in line with the average length of competitions before the introduction of the new style of competitions in 2010. In the present case, the length of the procedure could be explained by reference to the large number of candidates, the technical nature of the subject matter, and the type of pre-selection made. A total of 8000 citizens had applied to take part in the group of competitions of which the competition in which the complainant took part was one. The decision as to which of these candidates should be invited to the AC test was not made on the basis of computer tests, as is often the case, but by analysing the candidates' degrees, publications in peer-reviewed academic journals as well as their academic and work experience. This took more time than was the case in other competitions for more general profiles. However, the Commission underlined that EPSO kept candidates informed about the next steps, and had published a provisional timetable on its website.

The Ombudsman's assessment

20. It is good administrative practice to ensure that recruitment procedures are carried out as swiftly as possible. According to the notice of competition, the selection procedure in the present case was aimed at recruiting "research administrators" to work in teams of scientists undertaking laboratory work, analysing and evaluating experiments and preparing publications. In order to be invited to the AC test, candidates had to have a certain level of academic qualifications and professional experience.

21. The Ombudsman appreciates that the Selection Board had to analyse and evaluate the academic qualifications and professional experience of a relatively high number of candidates (8000 in all competitions taken together, 441 in the subject area of physics alone) and that this took a certain amount of time. However, the fact remains that almost eighteen months passed between the publication of the notice on 30 September 2010 and 29 March 2012, when the candidates in the selection procedure for Physics were invited to the AC test.

22. In the Ombudsman's view, the considerations to which the Commission referred do not justify such a long delay. In fact, the Commission itself refers to the fact that in many other cases, pre-selection tests are used in order to speed things up. The Commission has not put forward any explanation as to why this possibility was not anticipated when the relevant notice of competition was drawn up. In the Ombudsman's view, the time it took the Selection Board to decide which candidates to invite to the AC test was thus clearly excessive. This is an instance of maladministration.

23. The complainant claimed that EPSO should accelerate its competitions. Given that the Commission has taken over responsibility for the present case, the Ombudsman considers that it would not be useful to launch further inquiries as regards this claim concerning EPSO. Instead, she will make a critical remark directed at the Commission.

C. Conclusions

On the basis of her inquiry into this complaint, the Ombudsman closes it with the following conclusion and critical remark:

There was no maladministration in relation to the complainant's first allegation and claim.

It is good administrative practice to ensure that recruitment procedures are carried out as swiftly as possible. The Commission took almost eighteen months to inform candidates whether they would be invited to the next step in the selection procedure. This was excessive and an instance of maladministration.

The complainant and the Commission will be informed of this decision. A copy of this decision will be sent to EPSO for information.

 

Emily O'Reilly

Done in Strasbourg on 3 February 2014