Background to the complaint

1. In September 2018, the complainant applied for a job as IT Project Manager^[1] at the European Investment Bank (EIB). The EIB did not select his application for further consideration.

2. The complainant asked for feedback, that is, for the reasons why the EIB had not selected him. In particular, he wanted to know how his CV had been scored. The EIB informed the complainant that, given the high number of candidates, it was not in a position to give detailed feedback.

3. The complainant then submitted a complaint to the Complaints Mechanism of the EIB^[2]. He asked for information on the assessment of his CV per assessment category.

4. The EIB’s Complaint Mechanism replied to the complainant in December 2018. It apologised for the initial refusal to provide him with feedback, which was due to a misunderstanding, and confirmed that the EIB usually provides detailed feedback in selection procedures when a candidate specifically asks for it. It informed the complainant that the EIB had received 122 applications for this job. 40 applications had been “long-listed” and 12 had subsequently been “short-listed”. The complainant was among the 40 long-listed but not among the 12 short-listed candidates. The EIB’s practice is to short-list candidates based on a comparison of CVs and on how well the CVs meet the requirements for the advertised job. The EIB explained that “one of the reasons” the complainant’s application was not short-listed was that other candidates matched more closely the requirements for the job, and that his CV did not meet three specific requirements.^[3]

5. The complainant asked for further information from the EIB. He asked whether the use of the words “one of the reasons” for not short-listing him implied that there were other reasons not disclosed to him. He also asked whether some of the job requirements were given more weight than others and what records the EIB keeps after each selection phase. The EIB replied that selection panels enjoy wide discretion in how they organise the procedures for selecting staff. They assess the full CV against the qualifications listed in the job description but they do not make an assessment per category. The EIB does not record assessments at each stage of a staff selection procedure.

6. Dissatisfied with the EIB’s reply, the complainant turned to the European Ombudsman in February 2019.

The inquiry

7. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complaint that the EIB had failed to provide the complainant with information about how his application had been assessed, and that it had failed to provide feedback on why his application had not been short-listed.

8. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman received the EIB’s reply to the complaint and, subsequently, the comments of the complainant in response to the EIB’s reply.^[4]

9. In its reply, the EIB explained how it assesses applications in selection procedures. The assessment consists of four phases, namely Phase 1 -initial screening and long-listing, Phase 2 - technical screening and short-listing, Phase 3 - initial testing, and Phase 4 - final interview. Phase 1 consists of an initial screening of the applications against the job requirements set out in the job description. The EIB’s selection panel long-lists the applications that meet the requirements. Phase 2 consists of a technical screening of the long-listed applications by comparing the applications against each other. Applications that match best the requirements are short-listed and move on to Phase 3. The complainant’s application was not shortlisted.

10. The EIB stated that it does not apply any weighting to specific job requirements. The selection panel compares applications against each other without using scores per job requirement. The EIB does not keep records of specific information for each candidate during phases 1 and 2. However, the EIB has information on whether the candidate was long-listed or short-listed and on the rationale behind the decision.

11. Finally, the EIB stated that the use of the wording “one of the reasons” in its feedback to the complainant meant that priority was given to candidates whose profile matched more closely the job requirements, while the other reasons were the fact that his CV did not show that he met, partially or fully, all the job requirements.

12. The complainant argued that the feedback provided by the EIB is not transparent because it does not use a scoring system, which means there is no baseline against which to assess the applications. He contended that the feedback he obtained merely informed him that other candidates had better CVs. He thus considered that the EIB had not stated the grounds on which it took the decision not to short-list his application. The complainant also argued that not using a scoring system may be contrary to EU case-law.

The Ombudsman’s assessment

On the request for information on the methodology used in the selection procedure

13. The Ombudsman finds that the EIB has provided sufficient information to the complainant about the selection procedure. The EIB has explained in a clear way the different phases of the selection procedure and the methodology used for assessing applications. It has also clarified that it keeps information about the rationale behind the decision taken to long-list and short-list candidates in phases 1 and 2 of the selection procedure. The Ombudsman thus considers that the EIB has settled this aspect of the complaint.

On the request for individual feedback

14. The Ombudsman understands the complainant’s frustration with having to go through a long procedure to get the feedback that he should have received immediately. The EIB has said that its initial refusal to give the complainant feedback was a mistake and it has apologised to him. Since the EIB has clarified that its usual practice is to give feedback to all candidates who request it, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the mistake is unlikely to happen again.

15. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the feedback given to the complainant could have been formulated better. The feedback set out reasons of a comparative nature (that other candidates matched more closely the job requirements) and of a substantive nature (that his CV did not meet three specific job requirements) in the same sentence. This, as well as the use of the words “one of the reasons why”, created some confusion. However, the EIB has now clarified that there were no undisclosed reasons for not short-listing the complainant.

16. The complainant still considers that the EIB has failed to reason its decision not to short-list his application. According to EU case-law, the purpose of the obligation to give reasons for a decision affecting an individual is, first, to give sufficient details to allow the person concerned to ascertain whether the decision is well-founded and, second, to make it possible to challenge the decision before a court.^[5] In this case, the EIB informed the complainant that his CV did not meet three specific requirements in the job description. The Ombudsman thus considers that the feedback gives sufficient detail as to why the complainant’s application was not short-listed. This finding is not inconsistent with the fact that the procedure was also of a comparative nature, that is, that other applications better matched the requirements in the job description.^[6]

17. The complainant is also concerned that the EIB has no scoring system for applications and no objective criteria against which to assess each CV. EU case-law has consistently maintained that “communication to the candidates of the marks obtained in the various tests, which reflect the assessments made of them by the selection board, constitutes an adequate statement of the reasons on which the board's decisions are based.” (emphasis added)^[7] However, case-law has also confirmed that selection boards have a wide discretion in determining how they carry out their work.^[8] This means that the selection board is free not to use scores. While giving scores is an adequate statement of reasons, it is not an obligation. Other means of providing feedback, such as a description of which criteria were not fulfilled, are also acceptable. As set out in paragraph 16 above, the EIB gave the complainant sufficiently detailed reasons for not short-listing his application. It is clear that the criteria used for assessing and comparing CVs were the requirements in the job description.

18. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds that the EIB has settled also this aspect of the complaint.

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion:

The EIB has given information about the selection procedure as well as sufficient feedback on the assessment of the complainant’s application. The EIB has thus settled the complaint.

The complainant and the EIB will be informed of this decision.

 

Emily O'Reilly

European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 13/02/2020

 

 

[1] Job opening 105312.

[2] The EIB’s Complaints Mechanism has the role of investigating complaints to ensure the EIB complies with its internal policies and procedures and of proposing corrective actions when this does not take place.

[3] Namely “experience in Java EE-based development”, “experience in the financial sector” and “exposure to in-house development”.

[4] In the meantime, the complainant also submitted a second appeal to the EIB’s Complaint Mechanism, challenging the decision not to select his application for further consideration. This aspect was not part of the Ombudsman’s inquiry.

[5] See judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 November 1981, Bernard Michel v European Parliament, Case 195/80, paragraph 22.

[6] EU case-law maintains that a comparative assessment of candidates is an acceptable selection method when the objective is to select a limited number of candidates, even if the notice of competition does not lay down that the assessment will be of a comparative nature. See judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 July 2010, Andrzej Wybranowski v European Commission, F-17/08, paragraph 46.

[7] See judgment of the Court of 4 July 1996, European Parliament v Angelo Innamorati, C-254/95 P, paragraph 31.

[8] Judgment of the General Court of 11 February 1999, Mertens v Commission, T-244/97, paragraph 44; as well as Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 May 2008, Suvikas v Council, paragraphs 86-90.