FOR PREVIEWING & TESTING PURPOSES ONLY.
This notification will disappear once the page will be published.
This link is available for less than 30 minutes.
  • Jednostavno za čitanje
  • Veličina teksta
Europski ombudsman
Europski ombudsman

Imate li pritužbu protiv institucije ili tijela EU-a?

Podnesite pritužbu
Podnesite pritužbu
Trenutačni jezik: 
  • English
Dostupni jezici: 
Prijevod ove stranice bit će dostupan za nekoliko minuta. Bit ćete obaviješteni čim bude spreman.

Decision in case 2198/2018/LM on how the Single Resolution Board assessed an application in a staff selection procedure

Odluka
Slučaj 2198/2018/LM - Otvoren Četvrtak | 07 ožujka 2019 - Odluka donesena Četvrtak | 07 ožujka 2019 - Predmetna institucija Jedinstveni sanacijski odbor ( Nije utvrđen nepravilan rad uprave ) - Država Italija

The complaint to the Single Resolution Board and its reply to the complaint

1. The complainant applied for the position of finance officer at the Single Resolution Board (SRB)[1]. The score the SRB gave his application was not high enough to admit him to the next phase of the selection procedure.

2. The complainant considered that his professional qualifications and skills as described in his application met all the selection criteria set out in the vacancy notice. He therefore asked the SRB to review its decision to exclude him from the selection procedure. In case of a negative reply, he wished the SRB to provide him with more details regarding the reasons for his exclusion.

3. The SRB replied that it had received a large number of high quality applications and that only the applicants who received the highest scores were admitted to the next phase. It also informed the complainant of his individual scores per selection criterion.

4. The complainant turned to the Ombudsman in December 2018. He argued that the SRB was wrong not to admit him to the next phase of the selection procedure.

The European Ombudsman's findings

5. A selection committee has wide discretion in carrying out a comparative assessment of the professional experience of applicants[2]. The Ombudsman’s inquiry team cannot substitute its judgement for that of the selection committee as regards the substantive assessment of applications. The Ombudsman could make a finding of maladministration only in case of a manifest error of assessment by the selection committee.  

6. Beside the complainant’s conviction that his professional qualifications and skills met all the selection criteria, there is no evidence to suggest that the selection committee made a manifest error in assessing his application.

7. The SRB has provided the complainant with his individual scores for each selection criterion, thus allowing him to know how his application was assessed. Giving access to the marks obtained in a staff selection procedure is an adequate explanation of the reasons for a selection committee’s decision in relation to a particular applicant[3].

8. The complainant’s disappointment with having been excluded from the selection procedure is understandable. However in the light of the above, there was no maladministration by the SRB.

 

Tina Nilsson

Head of Inquiries - Unit 4

Strasbourg, 07/03/2019

 

 

[1] Vacancy notice available here: https://srb.europa.eu/sites/srbsite/files/ad6-finance_officer.pdf

[2] Judgement of the Court of First Instance of 11 February 1999, Mertens v Commission, T-244/97, paragraph 44.

[3] See, by analogy, judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 December 2012, Mata Blanco v Commission, F-65/10, paragraph 107.