The complaint

1. The complainant took part in a selection procedure for recruiting EU civil servants, organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)^[1]. The selection procedure was organised to recruit scientific research administrators in the field of development of space, telecommunication and remote sensing applications. ^[2]

2. EPSO informed the complainant that she was not admitted to the final stage of the selection procedure (the assessment centre), as she had not scored sufficient points at the ‘talent screener’ stage.

3. In the talent screener, all candidates in the same field have to answer the same questions about their professional and academic experience and qualifications. The questions are based on the selection criteria^[3] for the selection procedure. The ‘selection board’^[4] then assesses and scores the candidates’ answers.^[5]

4. Based on the complainant’s answers in the talent screener, the selection board awarded the complainant a score below the threshold required to be admitted to the next stage of the selection procedure.

5. The complainant considered that she should have received a higher score in the talent screener, and asked EPSO to review its decision. Following the review, EPSO informed the complainant that the selection board had confirmed its decision not to admit the complainant to the next stage of the selection procedure.

6. Dissatisfied with the outcome of the review, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman on 27 October 2019. She considered that the selection board had awarded points to candidates in a random manner. She was of the view that the procedure was unfair and not sufficiently transparent because candidates did not have information in advance on how they would be selected (including on the weighting of and the scoring of talent screeners). The complainant also raised concerns about possible discrimination against younger candidates. She also questioned whether the selection board had actually reviewed her talent screener answers.

The inquiry

7. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complaint about how EPSO assessed the complainant’s academic and professional experience in the talent screener stage of the selection procedure and the related issues raised by the complainant.

8. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman’s inquiry team inspected EPSO's file relevant to this case. The inspection report, with EPSO’s detailed explanations, is annexed to this decision.

The Ombudsman's assessment

9. In assessing candidates, selection boards are bound by the selection criteria for the selection procedure in question. At the same time, according to EU case-law, selection boards have a wide margin of discretion when assessing a candidate’s qualifications and professional experience against those criteria.^[6] The Ombudsman’s role is thus limited to determining if there was a manifest error by the selection board.^[7]

10. The talent screener aims to select those eligible candidates whose profiles best match the duties to be performed. To make that choice objectively, the selection board first determined the evaluation criteria and a scoring grid for each talent screener question. The points were thus not given in a random manner, as argued by the complainant.

11. The documents and explanations given during the inspection (see the inspection report annexed to this decision) do not indicate that there was a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s answers in the talent screener. On the contrary, they show that the selection board assessed the complainant’s answers based on objective criteria in the scoring grid.

12. The selection board assesses candidates solely on the basis of the information provided in their applications. It is the responsibility of candidates to provide the selection board with clear and comprehensive information in their applications.

13. A candidate’s personal belief about the relevance of their experience and/or how they answered the talent screener questions cannot call into question the selection board’s assessment and does not constitute evidence of manifest error by the selection board.^[8]

14. Regarding the complainant’s argument that the scoring process lacked transparency, the evaluation criteria and scoring grid (including the weighting) can remain secret during the selection procedure to guarantee the selection board’s independence and objectivity.^[9]

15. In EPSO’s explanations, it also addressed the complainant’s concerns about the weighting and possible discrimination of younger candidates convincingly (see the inspection report). 

16. Regarding the complainant’s concern that there had been no review, the documents and explanations provided to the Ombudsman, during the inspection of EPSO’s file (see the inspection report), show that the selection board carried out a review of the complainant’s talent screener in response to her request, and did so based on the scoring grid. 

17. In light of the above, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s answers to the talent screener.

Conclusions

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion^[10]:

There was no maladministration in how the European Personnel Selection Office assessed the complainant’s answers in her talent screener.

The complainant and EPSO will be informed of this decision.

 

Emily O'Reilly

European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 12/02/2020

 

[1] https://epso.europa.eu/home_en

[2] EPSO/AD/371/19 - 4 - SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH ADMINISTRATORS (AD7). The relevant notice of competition is available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:C2019/068A/01&rid=1

[3] The selection criteria are defined in the ‘notice of competition’, which sets out the criteria and rules applying to the selection procedure.

[4] Each selection procedure has a selection board, which is responsible for selecting candidates at each stage, based on pre-determined criteria, and drawing up the final list of successful candidates.

[5] For more information on the talent screener, see https://epso.europa.eu/help/faq/2711_en.  

[6]Judgment of the General Court of 11 February 1999, Case T-244/97, Mertens v Commission, paragraph 44: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/HR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61997TJ0244; judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2005, Case T-25/03, De Stefano v Commission, paragraph 34: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/celex.jsf?celex=62003TJ0025&lang1=en&type=TXT&ancre=.

[7] See Decision of the European Ombudsman closing the inquiry into complaint 14/2010/ANA against the

European Personnel Selection Office, paragraph 14 (decision available here:

https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/cases/decision.faces/en/10427/html.bookmark#_ftnref5); and judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 May 2005, Case T-294/03, Gibault v Commission, paragraph 41: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:62003TJ0294.

[8] Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 15 July 1993 in Joined Cases T-17/90, T-28/91 and T-17/92, Camara Alloisio e.a. v Commission, paragraph 90: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/GA/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61990TJ0017; judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 January 2003, Case T-53/00, Angioli v Commission, paragraph 94: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=47998&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5568.

[9] See judgment of the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) of 4 July 1996 in Case C-254/95, Parliament v Angelo Innamorati, paragraph 29, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61995CJ0254

[10] Full information on the procedure and rights pertaining to complaints can be found at https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/document/70707