Onderzoeken doorzoeken

The case concerned how the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessed the complainant’s professional experience in a selection procedure for recruiting EU staff in the field of international cooperation.

The Ombudsman found nothing to suggest a manifest error in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s qualifications and, therefore, closed the inquiry with a finding of no maladministration.

The case concerned the decision by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) not to select the complainant as an officer in its Standing Corps following an interview as part of a selection procedure. The complainant argued that his application had received unjustifiably low scores. In addition, the complainant was concerned that Frontex did not allow him to request a review of the decision.

The Ombudsman found that the selection board set up by Frontex had followed the vacancy notice when scoring the complainant’s application. Frontex confirmed that it had processed the complainant’s request for review, but acknowledged that the information provided to the complainant may not have been clear. In the course of the inquiry, Frontex implemented changes in its practices, which the Ombudsman welcomed.

The Ombudsman closed the inquiry with the conclusion that there was no maladministration by Frontex.

The European Global Navigation Satellite Systems Agency (GSA) rejected the complainant’s submission in a contest to design a logo because there was a technical problem with the submission.  

The Ombudsman’s view is that the GSA should have dealt with the matter differently and in accordance with the standards that citizens are entitled to expect from the EU administration. It should also have communicated in a more consistent and timely way with the complainant about the technical problem. However, as the contest procedure has now ended, the Ombudsman considered that further inquiries in this case are not justified.