Strasbourg, 8 May 2008

Dear Mr X,

On 15 May 2007, you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (the "ECDC") concerning your application for the position of financial assistant.

On 21 August 2007, I forwarded the complaint to the Director of the ECDC.

The ECDC sent the English version of its opinion on 29 November 2007.

On 29 and 30 November 2007, you sent me a further e-mail concerning your complaint, to which my services replied on the same day.

On 10 December 2007, the ECDC sent the French translation of its opinion.

On 11 December 2007, I forwarded it to you with an invitation to make observations, which you sent on 30 January 2008.

I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the relevant facts were, in summary, as follows:

On 4 February 2007, the complainant applied for a position as a financial assistant at the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control ("ECDC") in Stockholm. By e-mail of 25 April 2007, the ECDC informed the complainant that his application had not been successful because he did not meet the minimum requirements as regards experience.

The complainant challenged the ECDC's decision. He underlined that he had six years of experience in the financial field with several European institutions and that his "relevant experience" (in the area of finance) amounted to three years and three months. Therefore, he considered that he fully complied with the eligibility requirements of the vacancy notice.

By e-mail of 8 May 2007, the Chairman of the selection committee replied to the complainant. He explained that there had been intense competition for the position, with many candidates having extensive experience in the relevant area. He informed the complainant that the selection committee had concluded that not all of the experience he had listed in his CV was relevant to the post, and that, in comparison with other candidates, he did not rank among the most experienced candidates. The Chairman further stated that, in order to ensure equal opportunities for all the candidates, the committee had not taken into account the additional information he had provided at a later stage. Finally, the Chairman pointed out that this conclusion reflected the specific needs of the post and the intense competition that had taken place.

The complainant wrote to the selection committee once again on 10 May 2007, and asked for additional information. He also asked for the reasons why his application had not been taken into consideration.

The complainant stated that the ECDC's decision was unjustified, since he met all the necessary requirements for the post and had included, with his application, all the relevant information. He considered that the selection committee had not properly assessed the file submitted with his application in order to determine whether or not he was eligible for the post. In his view, taking into account the fact that the selection procedure had only been closed recently, the selection committee should reconsider his application. In the alternative, another solution should be proposed by the ECDC.

In his complaint to the European Ombudsman, the complainant alleged that the ECDC did not provide him with an appropriate explanation for its decision of 25 April 2007 refusing his application for a position of financial assistant.

He claimed that the ECDC should explain to him the reasons for this decision and reconvene the selection committee or, propose an alternative solution.

THE INQUIRY

Preliminary remark: the Ombudsman’s approach

In relation to the above allegation and related claim, the Ombudsman asked the ECDC to provide information on whether it considered that the complainant had fulfilled the formal requirement of possessing at least three years of professional experience, after obtaining his diploma, in positions relevant to the duties for the post In case of a negative response to the above question, the Ombudsman also asked the ECDC to provide him with an explanation.

The Ombudsman further asked the ECDC whether it was of the opinion that the complainant fulfilled the requirement concerning relevant experience, and whether it had carried out a comparative assessment between the complainant's application and the application of candidates meeting the minimum formal requirements, specifying the results of this comparison.

Finally, the Ombudsman informed the ECDC that several EU institutions and bodies had formally agreed to adopt a Code of Conduct as regards good administration and relations with citizens. The Ombudsman asked the ECDC to provide information as regards its policy with respect to this issue and, in particular, whether the ECDC had adopted a code of good administrative behaviour.

The ECDC’s opinion

The ECDC’s opinion on the complaint was, in summary, as follows:

The ECDC stated that the selection committee had carefully analysed the complainant’s application and considered that he did not meet the formal requirement of having at least three years of professional experience, after obtaining his diploma, in positions related to the requested duties.

It emerged from the complainant's CV that he had three years and three months of professional experience acquired after obtaining his diploma. However, not all of his experience was deemed relevant as regards the duties for the post. In particular, the selection committee considered that his experience at the European Economic and Social Committee ("EESC"), amounting to 16 months, was only partially relevant. The selection committee reached this conclusion because only the tasks concerning payroll and pay-associated processes, which he performed at the EESC, were relevant to the duties of the post of financial assistant. That experience could, thus, only be taken into account to a limited extent, both in terms of duration and relevance. In light of the above, the complainant’s application was not assessed further.

The ECDC added that many other applicants met the formal requirement and had much more relevant and extensive experience than the complainant had. In case the complainant’s application had been considered by the selection committee as meeting the formal requirement (which was not the case), he would still not have been shortlisted (the ECDC noted that only a limited number of candidates was invited for interview).

The ECDC further stated that it was currently in a "growing" phase and that the complainant was welcome to apply for future vacancies at the Centre should he be interested.

As regards the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour , the ECDC confirmed that it had adopted such a code. The relevant decision was formally adopted by the ECDC's management board in June 2007 and was available on the ECDC's website. The ECDC stated that it was strongly committed to principles of good administration and considered the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour to constitute a point of reference in its relations with the public.

The complainant's observations

In his observations, the complainant stated that he had indeed acquired three years and three months of professional experience.

THE DECISION

1 The alleged failure of the ECDC to provide the complainant with an appropriate explanation for its decision of 25 April 2007 refusing his application

1.1 The complainant applied for a position as a financial assistant at the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control ("ECDC") in Stockholm. By e-mail of 25 April 2007, the ECDC informed the complainant that his application had not been successful because he did not meet the minimum requirements as regards experience.

The complainant challenged the ECDC's decision. He underlined that he had six years of experience in the financial field with several European institutions and that his "relevant experience" (in the area of finance) amounted to three years and three months. Therefore, he considered that he fully complied with the eligibility requirements of the vacancy notice.

1.2 In its opinion, the ECDC stated that the complainant had three years and three months of professional experience acquired after obtaining his diploma. However, not all of his experience was deemed to be "relevant" as regards the post at the ECDC . In particular, the selection committee considered that his experience at the European Economic and Social Committee, amounting to 16 months, was only partially relevant. It could thus only be taken into account to a limited extent, both in terms of duration and relevance. In light of the above, the complainant’s application was not assessed further.

As regards the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour , the ECDC confirmed that it had adopted such a code. The relevant decision was formally adopted by the ECDC's management board in June 2007 and was available on the ECDC's website. The ECDC stated that it was strongly committed to principles of good administration and considered the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour to constitute a point of reference in its relations with the public.

1.3 In his observations, the complainant stated that he had indeed acquired three years and three months of professional experience.

1.4 As a preliminary remark, the Ombudsman welcomes the ECDC's decision to adopt its own Code of Good Administrative Behaviour. He also welcomes the ECDC’s commitment to respect principles of good administration and to consider the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour to constitute a point of reference in its relations with the public.

1.6 Pursuant to the established case-law of the Community Courts, the assessments which a Selection Board makes when evaluating the candidates' knowledge and abilities constitute the expression of a value judgment. They fall within the wide discretion enjoyed by the Selection Board and are amenable to review by the Community Courts only when there has been a flagrant breach of the rules governing the Selection Board's work.

1.7 In the present case, according to the vacancy for the post (ECDC/CA/III/2007/FA), candidates for the position were to be appointed on the basis of a shortlist proposed by the selection committee to the Director.

Furthermore, the vacancy notice for the post of financial assistant for which the complainant applied reads as follows:

"Formal requirements:

In order to be an eligible candidate, you need to have a set of formal requirements. These requirements are (…) at least three years, following the diploma, of professional experience of positions related to the aforementioned duties (…)".

1.8 The Ombudsman further notes that the job description of the position mentioned that the work of the financial assistant was to support the administration of ECDC's financial, accounting and procurement operations and listed some specific tasks (e.g., document financial operations or to perform salary reconciliations).

1.9 In its opinion on the present complaint, the ECDC stated that it emerged from the complainant's CV that he had indeed acquired professional experience of three years and three months after obtaining his diploma. However, the Selection Board deemed that not all of his experience was relevant as regards the duties for the post in question. The ECDC further explained that the complainant’s professional experience amounting to 16 months at the EESC was taken into account to a limited extent, both in terms of duration and relevance.

1.10 In light of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the ECDC provided a reasonable explanation, which was both sufficient and coherent, for its decision of 25 April 2007 to reject the complainant’s application on the basis of the lack of appropriate professional experience, both in terms of duration and relevance.

1.11 The Ombudsman, therefore, finds no maladministration by the ECDC with regard to the complainant’s allegation.

2 The complainant’s claims

2.1 The complainant claimed that the ECDC should explain to him the reasons for this decision and reconvene the selection committee or, propose an alternative solution.

2.2 In light of his conclusion in point 1.11 mentioned above, the Ombudsman concludes that the complainant has not sustained his claims.

3 Conclusion

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into this complaint, there appears to have been no maladministration by the ECDC. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The Director of the ECDC will also be informed of this decision.

Yours sincerely,

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS