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 scientific knowledge management & communication. ^[2]

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

3. In the talent screener, candidates have to answer questions about their professional and academic experience and qualifications. The questions are based on the selection criteria^[3] for the selection procedure in question. 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 gave the complainant a score below the threshold required to be admitted to the next stage of the selection procedure.

5. The complainant considered that he should have received a higher score for a question in the talent screener about his qualifications (diplomas), and asked EPSO to review this and thus 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 that review, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in November 2019.

The inquiry

7. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complaint about how the selection board assessed the complainant’s qualifications (diplomas) in his application.

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.

10. 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 when assessing the talent screener.^[7]

11. The talent screener aims to select those eligible candidates whose profiles best match the duties to be performed. To make that choice, the selection board first determines evaluation criteria and a scoring grid for each talent screener question. This falls entirely within the selection board’s discretion.

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

13. The documents and explanations given to the Ombudsman during the inspection of EPSO’s file (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 answer to the question about his qualifications (diplomas) in the talent screener.

14. A candidate’s personal belief about the relevance of his profile cannot call into question the selection board’s assessment and does not constitute evidence of manifest error by the selection board^[8].

15. In light of the above, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in how the selection board assessed the answer to the question about the complainant’s qualifications in the talent screener.

Conclusions

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion^[9]:

There was no maladministration in how the European Personnel Selection Office assessed the complainant’s qualifications in the 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 - 5 - 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:

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