The complaint

1. The complainant took part in a selection procedure for recruiting EU civil servants, which was organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)^[1]. The selection procedure was organised to recruit, among others, staff in the field of the financial rules applicable to the EU budget.

2. EPSO informed the complainant that he was not eligible to participate in the selection procedure since he did not have the necessary professional experience to meet the eligibility criteria set out in the ‘notice of competition’.^[2] More specifically, the complainant did not have at least 6 years of experience related to the application of financial rules and procedures applicable to the EU budget.

3. The complainant asked EPSO to review its decision. Following the review, EPSO informed the complainant that the selection board^[3] had confirmed its decision not to admit the complainant to the selection procedure.

4. Dissatisfied with the outcome of the review, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in February 2020.

The inquiry

5. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complaint about how the selection board assessed the complainant’s professional experience.

6. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman’s inquiry team inspected EPSO's file relevant to this case and obtained clarifications on the selection board’s assessment of the complainant’s professional experience. In summary, the selection board considered that the complainant had not described some of his professional experience in sufficient detail to allow the selection board to determine its relevance, that is, whether it was related to the application of financial rules and procedures applicable to the EU budget. The selection board also considered that some of the complainant’s professional experience was not relevant or only partially relevant. The selection board made this assessment on the basis of pre-established criteria. The selection board concluded that the complainant did not have the required 6 years of relevant professional experience.   

7. The complainant provided comments to the Ombudsman’s inspection report with the selection board’s clarifications. He relied on some of the replies he had given in the ‘talent screener’^[4] section of the application to argue that the selection board had wrongly assessed his professional experience. He also contended that the criteria applied by the selection board to assess candidates’ professional experience should have been set out in the notice of competition.

The Ombudsman's assessment

8. The selection board is bound by the notice of competition. The notice of competition for the selection procedure in question set out that, in assessing whether a candidate complies with the eligibility requirements for the selection procedure, the selection board will check the information contained in the sections of the application entitled ‘Education and Training’, ’Professional experience’ and ‘Language Skills’^[5]. Thus, when determining the eligibility, the selection board could not take into consideration information given by a candidate in the talent screener section of the application, as argued by the complainant.

9. Regarding the assessment of the complainant’s professional experience, it is established EU case-law that selection boards have a wide margin of discretion when assessing a candidate’s qualifications and professional experience against the eligibility criteria set out in the notice of competition.^[6] The Ombudsman’s role is thus limited to determining if there was a manifest error by the selection board.^[7]

10. The documents and explanations given to the Ombudsman in the context of the inspection of EPSO’s file do not indicate any manifest error of assessment by the selection board in in its finding that the complainant was not eligible to participate in the selection procedure. The Ombudsman’s inquiry has confirmed that the complainant’s application was assessed on the basis of criteria that had been pre-established by the selection board. It falls within the margin of discretion of the selection board to establish such criteria, on the basis of the specific eligibility conditions in the notice of competition.  

11. On the basis of the above, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in how EPSO assessed the complainant’s application.

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following conclusion^[8]:

There was no maladministration by the European Personnel Selection Office in its finding that the complainant was not eligible to participate in the selection procedure.^[9]

The complainant and EPSO will be informed of this decision.

 

Tina Nilsson
Head of the Case-handling Unit

Strasbourg, 12/10/2020

 

[1] The notice of competition EPSO/AD/374/2019 is available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C:2019:191A:FULL&from=EN

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

[3] 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.

[4] In the talent screener, candidates have to answer questions about their professional experience and qualifications.

[5] See Point 3) of part “How I will be selected” of the notice of competition.

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

[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.