COMPLAINT: 2037/2019/MH

Case title: The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) and how it assessed a complainant’s talent screener in a selection procedure for the recruitment of EU civil servants in scientific research

 

Introduction, procedural information and purpose of the inspection of documents

The Ombudsman's inquiry team introduced its members and outlined the legal framework applicable to meetings and inspections by the European Ombudsman. In particular, it informed EPSO that the applicable rules provide that the Ombudsman will not disclose any information or documents identified by EPSO as confidential, neither to the complainant nor to any other person outside the Ombudsman's Office, without EPSO’s prior agreement^[1].

The inquiry team also explained that the purpose of the meeting and inspection was to receive further information from EPSO on the assessment of the complainant´s academic and professional experience, as well as her publications, in the talent screener phase of competition for Scientific Research Administrators - EPSO/AD/371/19- Field 4 (Space, Security and Migration).^[2] In particular, the purpose was to clarify the Selection Board’s reasoning behind the scoring of Questions 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the talent screener. The inquiry team also considered it would be useful to understand the cut-off date of 1 January 2017 in the questions.

As a first step in inquiries concerning EPSO’s decisions to exclude candidates from selection procedures, the Ombudsman organises inspection meetings mainly with a view to obtaining additional information and explanations on the Selection Board’s work, to reassure complainants that all relevant aspects were considered.

Information exchanged

EPSO explained that the Selection Board scored replies to the talent screener questions based on pre-established criteria, that is to say the “Criteria for Talent Screener Scoring” for competition EPSO/AD/371/19 - Field 4^[3]. These criteria applied to all candidates.

A. SCORING OF EXPERIENCE AND PUBLICATIONS

In particular:

· Concerning Question 1^[4], the Selection Board awarded points based on “duration vs relevance” of academic and/or professional experience after 1 January 2017. The more relevant and the longer the research experience, the more points candidates would receive. For relevance, the complainant fell into the category of candidates having “research experience relevant to EU policy fields, leadership OR proven active international involvement.” Regarding duration, the complainant fell within the “9 to 18 months” category. On this basis, the complainant received 2 points. Where candidates did not provide sufficient details of how their experience related to research, the Selection Board awarded 0 points. The complainant’s experience as from February 2018 was described as “scientific support” in the talent screener (rather than as research-related experience). For this reason, the Selection Board could not take it into account.

· Regarding Question 2^[5], the Selection Board applied the same methodology as in question 1, that is to say, the longer and more relevant a candidate’s research experience before 1 January 2017, the higher the score (“duration vs relevance”). For relevance, the complainant fell into the category of candidates who had “research experience relevant to EU policy fields, leadership OR proven active international involvement.” For duration, the complainant fell within the category, “4 to 6 years”. Accordingly, the complainant received 2 points.

· Concerning Question 4^[6], the Selection Board scored candidates’ publications after 1 January 2017 based on pre-defined criterion measuring the quantity and the quality of their reports, that is to say based on the “number of publications vs authorship type”. Concerning the number of publications, the complainant fell within the category of candidates having “at least ONE peer reviewed paper OR one professional research report in one of the subdomains”. This was because she had one peer-reviewed journal publication only (and did not have a professional research report). To receive more points, she required both. Regarding authorship type, the complainant fell within the category of being the “1st author in at least ONE of the publications”. Therefore, the complainant received 2 points.

· Regarding Question 5^[7], the Selection Board scored candidates’ publications before 1 January 2017 based on “the number of publications”. The complainant fell within the category of having “more than 6 peer reviewed papers or professional research reports in one of the subdomains” and within the category “1st author in one of the publications”. Only those candidates published in an “outstanding journal” (according to a pre-defined list) could receive the maximum number of points.

In light of the above explanations, EPSO considered that it had assessed the talent screener correctly and based objective criteria.

B. TRANSPARENCY CONCERNS

Concerning the complainant’s claim that EPSO should have made the Selection Board’s criteria public (including the weighting), EPSO reiterated that EU case law requires it to keep this information secret to guarantee the Selection Board’s independence and objectivity^[8].

C. AGE DISCRIMINATION CONCERNS

The complainant was of the view that there had been possible discrimination against younger candidates during the talent screener phase.

EPSO disagrees. The cut off dates (before/ after 1 January 2017) used to score questions 1, 2 and 4 and 5 placed more emphasis  on more recent experience/ publications during the talent screener phase. In this regard, it pointed out that Questions 1 and 2 had the same weighting (a weighting of 3), as did Questions 3 and 4 (a weighting of 2).

The Notice of Competition drew a distinction between: (a) the requirements for admission to the competition (“at least 6 years’ professional experience”), and (b) how it assessed the talent screener (“selection based on qualifications”).^[9] It was also pointed out that the complainant had not challenged the Notice of Competition at the time.

D. CONCERNS ABOUT EPSO’S REPLY TO THE REQUEST FOR REVIEW

The complainant was also concerned that EPSO had not examined her request for review properly because its reply to her was “exactly the same” as replies sent to other candidates. She was therefore of the view that EPSO had not actually carried out a review.  In this regard, the inquiry team inspected the “Fiche Jury” on the request for review, which confirms that the Selection Board did carry out a review.

Documents inspected

During the meeting, the Ombudsman’s inquiry team obtained a copy of the following documents:

· Criteria for Talent Screening Scoring EPSO/AD/371/19 - Scientific Research Administrators (AD 7) - Field 4, 21 May 2019 (CONFIDENTIAL)

· Fiche Jury on Request for Review, 10 July 2019 (CONFIDENTIAL)

EPSO identified both of these documents as confidential. This means that no access may be granted to these documents to anyone outside the Ombudsman’s Office.^[10]

Brussels, 7 February 2020

 

Head of Inquiries Unit 4                                             Case Handler, Inquiries Unit 4

 

[1] Article 4.8 of the European Ombudsman's Implementing Provisions.

[2] https://epso.europa.eu/job-opportunities/competition/3589/description_en

[3] Document adopted by the Selection Board, as a collegial body, on 21 May 2019

[4] “Do you have academic and/or professional research experience relevant to the chosen field gained after 1 Jan 2017?”

[5] “Do you have academic and/or professional research experience relevant to the chosen field gained before 1 Jan 2017?”

[6] “Have you published in peer reviewed journals and professional research reports published after 1 January 2017”

[7] “Have you published in peer reviewed journals and professional research reports published before 1 January 2017”

[8] Judgment of the Court of 4 July 1996, European Parliament v Angelo Innamorati, Case C-254/95, paragraph 29: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61995CJ0254

[9] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:2019:068A:TOC

[10] Article 4.8 of the European Ombudsman's Implementing Provisions.