The complaint to the European Personnel Selection Office

1. The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising a number of open‐ended selection procedures to create a pool of candidates with different profiles from which the EU institutions can recruit contract agents^[1]. If a candidate who has applied to such a selection procedure is shortlisted by an EU institution, EPSO invites the candidate to sit a series of computer tests, among them a competency test related to the chosen profile.

2. The complainant applied to take part in several such selection procedures, among others for function group III (FG III) and function group IV (FG IV)^[2] in the area of finance. An EU institution shortlisted the complainant for the FG III finance profile^[3]. He sat and passed the finance competency test in the FG III selection procedure.^[4]

3. The complainant then contacted EPSO and asked if his competency test results could be considered valid also for the FG IV selection procedure, given that his score of 20 points exceeded not only the pass mark for the FG III procedure but also that of the FG IV procedure.^[5]

4. EPSO replied that the complainant’s results were not valid for the FG IV procedure as he had taken the competency test in the FG III procedure.

5. In May 2018, the complainant made an administrative complaint to EPSO for not considering his competency test results valid for the FG IV procedure. The complainant argued that not recognising the FG III competency test results as valid for the FG IV procedure for the same profile leads to a breach of equal treatment of candidates. Unlike candidates who sat the competency test in the FG IV selection procedure and passed it with a score lower than 20, he would need to ‘repeat’ the competency test for the FG IV procedure. The complainant argued that sitting the competency test again would be an unreasonable burden on him.

The European Personnel Selection Office’s response to the complainant

6. EPSO rejected the complaint. The rules for the selection procedures in question^[6] clearly set out that the competency test results obtained for a particular profile and function group are not valid for a higher function group of the same profile. The complainant sat the competency test in the selection procedure for FG III. The reference number of the FG III selection procedure was explicitly stated both in the test date booking confirmation and in the letter notifying the complainant of the competency test results. EPSO concluded that the fact that the complainant’s score exceeded the pass mark for the FG IV procedure was thus irrelevant.

7. EPSO also considered that the complainant’s argument about unequal treatment was unfounded. The complainant did not sit the competency test in the FG IV selection procedure of the finance profile. He could thus not be considered to be in the same, or a comparable, situation as candidates who sat and passed the competency test in the FG IV selection procedure. If an EU institution were to shortlist the complainant for the FG IV finance profile, he would then be invited to sit, not to repeat, the competency test for that selection procedure.

8. Dissatisfied with EPSO’s response, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in December 2018. In his view, by not recognising competency test results as valid for higher function groups of the same profile, the rules for the open-ended selection procedure lead to unequal treatment of candidates and make the selection of contract agents cumbersome and inefficient. The complainant suggests that EPSO apply an “exceptional procedure” to recognise his FG III competency test results in the selection procedure for the FG IV finance profile.

The European Ombudsman's findings

9. The rules for the selection procedures for contract agents are clear in that “results in the lower function groups do not apply to the higher function groups”^[7]. Although the complainant considers that this aspect of the rules makes the selection procedure cumbersome and inefficient, the fact remains that EPSO has broad discretion in designing selection procedures for the recruitment of staff to the EU administration^[8], such as the open-ended selection procedures for contract agents. The complainant was responsible for familiarising himself with the rules before applying to take part in the selection procedures for the different function groups.

10. The complainant sat and passed the competency test in the selection procedure for FG III of the finance profile. According to the rules, his competency test results are not valid for the FG IV selection procedure of the same profile. It is correct for EPSO to consider that the complainant was not in the same, or a similar, situation as candidates who sat and passed the competency test in the FG IV selection procedure of the finance profile and that the rules therefore do not lead to unequal treatment. On the contrary, accepting the complainant’s request to recognise his FG III competency test results in the FG IV procedure through an “exceptional procedure” would lead to unequal treatment of candidates.

11. The Ombudsman thus finds no maladministration by EPSO in designing and applying to the complainant the rules of the open-ended selection procedure for the recruitment of contract agents.^[9]

 

Tina Nilsson

Head of Inquiries - Unit 4

Strasbourg, 27/05/2019

 

[1] Contract agents are recruited to do manual or administrative support–service tasks or to provide additional capacity in specialised fields where an insufficient number of civil servants with the required skills are available. Contract staff are typically employed for a fixed maximum period, often with a shorter initial contract of 6-12 months, depending on the type of job. See: https://epso.europa.eu/help/faq/2038_en

[2] FG III contract agents are recruited to perform executive tasks, drafting, accountancy and other equivalent technical tasks; FG IV contract agents are recruited to perform administrative, advisory, linguistic and equivalent technical tasks.

[3] Selection procedure EPSO/CAST/P/1/2017.

[4] The complainant had already passed the other required test, the so-called ‘CBT reasoning test‘ in the context of an FG IV selection procedure for a different profile.

[5] The pass mark is 13 out of 25 points for FG III and 16 out of 25 points for FG IV.

[6] Call for expression of interest: https://epso.europa.eu/sites/epso/files/documents/casts/2017/epsocastp1-172017/call/en.pdf

and two corrigenda: https://epso.europa.eu/sites/epso/files/documents/casts/2017/epsocastp1-172017/corrigendum1/en.pdf; https://epso.europa.eu/sites/epso/files/documents/casts/2017/epsocastp1-172017/corrigendum2/en_final.pdf

[7] See corrigendum one, page 3.

[8] By analogy judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 1990, Gallone v Council, T-132/89, paragraph 27: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/showPdf.jsf?text=&docid=102839&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=3427378

[9] This complaint has been dealt with under delegated case handling, in accordance with Article 11 of the Decision of the European Ombudsman adopting Implementing Provisions. Information on the review procedure can be found on the Ombudsman’s website: http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/resources/otherdocument.faces/en/70669/html.bookmark