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 officers in the field of technical security.

2. On 5 June 2019, 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]

3. On the same day, the complainant asked EPSO to review its decision.

4. Having received no reply, on 9 July 2019, the complainant sent a reminder. Separately, on 12 July 2019, the complainant also asked a number of questions concerning what he saw as the confidentiality and secrecy of the competition.

5. As the complainant received neither a reply to his request for review nor satisfactory replies to his follow-up messages, he turned to the Ombudsman on 19 October 2019.

The inquiry

6. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complaint. She initially asked EPSO to reply to the complainant’s request for review of the decision not to admit him to the selection procedure in question.

7. In the course of the inquiry, EPSO replied to the complainant’s request for review, settling the procedural aspect of this complaint.

8. Dissatisfied with the reply, the complainant questioned how EPSO dealt with his request for review. He claimed that EPSO had not adequately addressed either the specific issues mentioned in his request for review or his concerns over confidentiality and secrecy.

9. In the interest of procedural economy, the Ombudsman asked EPSO to organise an inspection meeting. She also asked EPSO to reply to the complainant’s concerns over confidentiality and secrecy of the competition, which it did on 3 March 2020.

10. 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

11. In assessing candidates, selection boards are bound by the eligibility 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.^[3] The Ombudsman’s role is thus limited to determining if there was a manifest error by the selection board.^[4]

12. 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 any manifest error in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s eligibility.

13. 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^[5].

14. It is the responsibility of candidates to provide the selection board with sufficient information to enable it to check whether they fulfil the conditions set out in the notice of competition. In particular, it is the candidates’ responsibility to explain sufficiently how their professional experience is relevant to the duties set out in the notice of competition.

15. In his request for review, the complainant noted that it is essential to “understand the particularities of working as independent engineer and entrepreneur in some countries”. As an electromechanical constructor, he was responsible for security infrastructure as well^[6], which he clearly indicated in his application. However, “due to space limitations, the detailed project examples are shown only in the talent screener”, which is an “integral part of the application”.

16. A Selection Board conducts the eligibility assessment solely on the basis of information in the ‘education and training’, ‘professional experience’ and ‘language skills’ sections of the application^[7]. Information provided in the talent screener section, even if were to show how the complainant’s previous work experience is relevant to the duties in the notice of competition, cannot serve as a basis for Selection Board’s assessment at the eligibility stage.

17. Moreover, the ‘occupation’ and ‘nature of duties’ tabs in the ‘professional experience’ section allow the candidates to insert more information about their work experience, which should be sufficient to prove its relevance.

18. From the information, documents and explanations available to the Ombudsman, it does not appear that the complainant’s explanation of his professional experience was sufficient to demonstrate its relevance to the duties set out in the notice of competition. The explanations of the Selection Board to this effect are thus reasonable.

19. On the basis of the above, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in how the selection board assessed the complainant’s eligibility.

Conclusion

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

There was no maladministration in how the European Personnel Selection Office assessed the complainant’s eligibility.

The complainant and EPSO will be informed of this decision.

 

Emily O'Reilly

European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 18/03/2020

 

[1] EPSO/AD/364/19 - 2 - https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C:2019:030A: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] 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=.

[4] 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.

[5] 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;jsessionid=5C753C4AA9003D9CA2267431863773CE?text=&docid=47998&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=6802917

[6] Moreover, in a later message he wrote that national law provisions “place technical security infrastructures under the 'umbrella' of electromechanical works”.

[7] See section 3) eligibility checks of the notice of competition.

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