You have a complaint against an EU institution or body?

Search cases

Text search

Document type

Institution concerned

Type of settlement

Case number

Language

Date range

Keywords

HR issues

Or try old keywords (Before 2016)

Showing 1 - 20 of 707 results

Decision in case 1934/2019/JAP on the European Personnel Selection Office’s decision not to admit a candidate to a selection procedure for EU civil servants

Wednesday | 18 March 2020

The case initially concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s (EPSO) failure to reply to the complainant’s request for review of the decision not to admit him to a selection procedure for EU civil servants in the field of technical security due to his lack of professional experience.

The Ombudsman asked EPSO to reply to the complainant’s request for review. Once EPSO provided its reply, the complainant questioned it, claiming that it was inadequate. He also argued that EPSO failed to address his specific questions concerning the confidentiality and secrecy of the competition.

The Ombudsman inspected EPSO’s file on the complaint. She found that the selection board had examined the information provided in the complainant’s application and assessed it against the eligibility criteria. The Ombudsman did not identify a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the application, and closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision of the European Ombudsman in case 2119/2018/LM on concerns about possible blacklisting by Europol of an applicant in staff selection procedures

Thursday | 05 March 2020

The complainant turned to the Ombudsman because he was concerned that Europol had black-listed him from its staff recruitment procedures after he had raised concerns and complained to OLAF about a previous staff selection procedure.

The Ombudsman notes that the complainant is a highly qualified individual, who was shortlisted once by Europol. His concerns are thus understandable. In this case, however, the Ombudsman did not find evidence to suggest that the complainant had been unsuccessful in subsequent staff selection procedures for anything other than objective reasons. She thus closed the case with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision in case 190/2020/DDJ on how the European Personnel Selection Office assessed the complainant’s talent screener in a selection procedure for the recruitment of EU civil servants in scientific research

Monday | 24 February 2020

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s (EPSO) decision not to admit the complainant to the next stage of a selection procedure for the recruitment of EU civil servants in scientific research. It did so because the complainant had not scored sufficient points at the talent screener stage.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the manner in which EPSO assessed the complainant’s reply to a question in her talent screener about her qualifications. The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s reply to this question. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision in case 2011/2019/LM on how the European Commission dealt with the fact that the wrong deadline was given for traineeship applicants to upload supporting documents

Wednesday | 19 February 2020

The complainant applied for a traineeship at the European Commission and was asked to submit supporting documents. When she checked her online application account, she noticed that the deadline set for doing so had already expired by six months. When she logged in again, one week later, she learned that the actual deadline had expired earlier that day. Dissatisfied with the Commission’s decision to exclude her from the selection procedure, she turned to the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman finds it regrettable that the Commission initially gave an incorrect deadline in the application accounts. While the Commission corrected the error within 15 minutes, it was alerted to the fact that some candidates had seen it. As such, it should have sent a notification to all candidates about the correct deadline.

At the same time, the complainant herself was required to check her application account at least twice a week and, in this case, failed to do so. It was therefore reasonable for the Commission not to accept her supporting documents. The Ombudsman closes the case, welcoming the steps the Commission has taken to avoid similar mistakes happening in the future.

Decision in case 217/2019/NH on the feedback given by the European Investment Bank to a candidate in a selection procedure for a position of IT Project Manager

Thursday | 13 February 2020

The case concerned the feedback given by the European Investment Bank (EIB) to an individual whose application for a job as IT project manager was rejected. The complainant essentially argued that the EIB had not given sufficient reasons for its decision and that it had failed to reply properly to his questions about how selection procedures are carried out.

After obtaining certain clarifications in the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman concluded that the EIB had provided sufficient feedback on the assessment of the complainant’s application, as well as information on the selection procedure.

The Ombudsman thus closed the case as settled by the EIB.

Decision in case 2037/2019/MH on the European Personnel Selection Office and how it assessed a complainant’s talent screener in a selection procedure for the recruitment of EU civil servants in scientific research

Wednesday | 12 February 2020

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s (EPSO) decision not to admit the complainant to the next stage of a selection procedure for the recruitment of EU civil servants in scientific research. It did so because the complainant had not scored sufficient points at the talent screener stage.

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s qualifications. She confirmed that EPSO carried out a review of the complainant’s talent screener based on objective criteria, which it was entitled to keep secret. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

Decision in case 2038/2019/MH on the European Personnel Selection Office and how it assessed a complainant’s talent screener in a selection procedure for the recruitment of EU civil servants in scientific research

Wednesday | 12 February 2020

The case concerned the European Personnel Selection Office’s (EPSO) decision not to admit the complainant to the next stage of a selection procedure for the recruitment of EU civil servants in scientific research. It did so because the complainant had not scored sufficient points at the talent screener stage.

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into how EPSO assessed the complainant’s reply to a question in his talent screener about his qualifications. The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s reply to this question. The Ombudsman therefore closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.