Institution or body concerned: EPSO

Date and time: 19 October 2016, 12:10-13:00

Location: Avenue de Cortenbergh 25, 1049 Brussels, C-25 07/044

The Ombudsman's services

represented by: Mr Fergal Ó Regan, Head of Coordination of Public Interest Inquiries - Unit 2

Ms Nastasja Fuxa, Complaints and Inquiries Unit 4

Mr Tuomas Lihr, Strategic Inquiries Unit

EPSO represented by: Ms Renata Krizsai, EPSO.05.001

Ms Sarah Rooney, EPSO

1. Introduction and procedural aspects

The Ombudsman's inquiry team introduced themselves and explained that the purpose of the own-initiative inquiry was to assist EPSO in identifying and making possible systemic improvements in the request for review procedure and in its application.[1]

The Ombudsman's inquiry team explained that the purpose of the meeting was to provide an opportunity (i) to clarify remaining issues falling within the scope of the inquiry so as to enable the Ombudsman to finalise her analysis and (ii) to inspect a sample set of request for review files relating to other issues than marks obtained by candidates in the competition.

The Ombudsman's inquiry team outlined the legal framework applicable to the meeting and the inspection, notably that the Ombudsman will not disclose any information or documents identified by EPSO as confidential without the prior agreement of the institution.[2] The Ombudsman's inquiry team also informed EPSO that the Ombudsman will publish this report on her website, in order to allow anyone interested to read it.

2. Exchange of views and clarifications provided by EPSO

In preparing for the meeting, the Ombudsman’s inquiry team had sent questions to EPSO aimed at ascertaining (i) whether EPSO applies a "minimum threshold" of reasoning below which a candidate's correspondence is not considered as a request for review[3] and (ii) how the distinctive tasks of the selection board and EPSO are carried out in practice when processing requests for review.

In response, EPSO's representatives explained at the meeting that:

EPSO does not consider correspondence in which a candidate contests his/her marks obtained in a competition, without any supporting arguments, as a request for review. Such correspondence, which can be processed more rapidly because it is not submitted for the selection board's assessment, is relatively rare in practice.

Requests for review in relation to the selection board’s value judgement of a candidate’s performance in a competition are submitted to the selection board for its decision. However, given the EU courts’ settled case-law on the selection board’s discretion in a comparative assessment of merits, EPSO can process this type of request for review relatively quickly, based on standard letters.

EPSO's representatives stated that the admission and talent screener phases of competitions produce the most requests for review, which also require more in-depth assessment. EPSO does not provide a preliminary assessment of the merits of a request for review to the selection board before the selection board processes these types of requests. Nor does the selection board validate the reasoned reply to the request for review drafted by EPSO before it is sent to the candidate. This is because EPSO cannot deviate from the selection board's decision. EPSO, however, does consult the selection board if the reasoning noted down by the selection board is not sufficiently clear for EPSO to substantiate the reply in a particular case.

More detailed documentation from the selection board on its reasoning would generally help EPSO to expedite the drafting of replies to requests for review in accordance with the selection board's decision. The level of detail of reasoning currently provided by selection boards to substantiate their decisions varies significantly from one selection board to the other. EPSO has considered providing additional training and guidance to selection boards with a view to ensuring that the selection boards help improve the processing of requests for review. EPSO's permanent selection board members[4] could possibly play a bigger role in coordinating the recording of decisions or in drafting reasoned replies to candidates.

At the start of 2016, EPSO introduced new standard draft letters on which its replies to requests for review are based. With a view to streamlining the processing of requests for review, the standard draft letters have been simplified to include fewer details and cover broader categories of circumstances. EPSO provided electronic copies of the standard draft letters to the Ombudsman (see ‘3. Inspection of the file’ below).

EPSO has also tried to reduce the number of ineligible applications by providing more information on competitions on a new Frequently Asked Questions section on its website.

EPSO’s representatives stated that there is no longer a backlog of requests for review.

3. Inspection of the file

The Ombudsman's inquiry team inspected and took copies of a sample set of request for review files relating to issues other than marks obtained by candidates in the competition (confidential).

In addition, EPSO provided[5] electronic copies of its standard letters on which its replies to requests for review are based.

Confidentiality of the inspected documents

As indicated above, EPSO's representatives identified the sample set of request for review files as ‘confidential’, in accordance with Article 4(8) of the European Ombudsman's Implementing Provisions. The copies of the relevant documents were marked ‘confidential’ and signed by a representative of EPSO and a representative of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman will not disclose these confidential documents to the public without the prior agreement of EPSO.

Brussels, 06/12/2016

Mr Fergal Ó Regan                                                                                       Ms Nastasja Fuxa

Head of Coordination of Public Interest Inquiries - Unit 2                                 Legal Officer (case handler)

 

 

[1] The letter opening the inquiry is available here: http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/cases/correspondence.faces/en/60261/html.bookmark.

[2] Article 4(8) of the European Ombudsman's Implementing Provisions.

[3] The general rules governing open competitions require that candidates "must state the grounds on which [the] request is based". The rules also provide that candidates "are not allowed to challenge the validity of the selection board's assessment concerning the quality of [their] performance in a test". OJ 2014 C 60 A, page 1.

[4] Each selection board is made up of officials from the EU Institutions, and consists of permanent members (appointed usually for 2 to 4 years to ensure consistency across selection procedures) and non-permanent members (appointed for a particular selection process to bring technical expertise).

[5] E-mails dated 7 and 17 November 2016.