THE BACKGROUND TO THE COMPLAINT

1. The complainant is a doctor who took part in Open Competition EPSO/AD/125/08 for the recruitment of doctors (AD9).

2. Point I.B.2 of the Notice of Competition provided as follows:

"Since obtaining the qualification required, you must have acquired at least ten years' professional experience; this experience must have been gained in at least two of the following areas: occupational medicine, general medicine, emergency medicine, internal medicine, tropical medicine, ergonomics, assessment of physical injury, any medical specialisation associated with the duties to be performed." (emphasis in original)

3. On 26 June 2008, EPSO informed the complainant that he had successfully passed the admission tests and invited him to submit a full application by 17 July 2008. The complainant complied with this deadline. However, on 27 August 2008, he informed EPSO by e-mail that he could not provide all the requested documents with his full application in order to prove his previous employment. He explained that this was because, as is normal practice in the UK, he had changed his job nearly every 6 months at the beginning of his career. As a result, it was no longer possible for him to obtain copies of payslips (or other means of proof requested by EPSO) after more than 10 years, since hospitals in the UK do not keep copies of employment records after a certain period of time. However, his JCTGP certificate, that is, the certificate issued by the Royal College of General Practitioners Joint Committee for Training in General Practice, actually proved that he possessed the required professional experience. The complainant therefore asked EPSO to take this information into account "as proof of having completed the jobs listed in my C.V. as other proof is unobtainable."

4. Despite his above explanations, on 8 September 2008, EPSO informed the complainant that his application had been rejected because he had not provided proof that he possessed the required ten years of postgraduate experience.

5. After unsuccessfully attempting to resolve the matter with EPSO, the complainant submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman on 11 November 2008.

THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE INQUIRY

6. On 9 December 2008, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the following allegations and claims:

The complainant alleged that:

1. when drafting the notice of competition, EPSO failed to take into account that British doctors would not be able to provide more evidence of their relevant professional experience than he did in this case;
2. when he subsequently informed EPSO and the Selection Board that he would not, by the nature of his education and profession, be able to provide more evidence of the relevant professional experience than he already did, the response was procedurally and substantially inadequate.

The complainant claimed that EPSO should take measures to avoid similar problems in the future.

THE INQUIRY

Developments following the opening of the Ombudsman's inquiry

7. On 6 January 2009, EPSO sent its opinion to the Ombudsman and stated that the Selection Board of the Open Competition in question had re-examined the complainant's file and decided to invite him for the oral test. It enclosed a copy of the invitation letter that was sent to the complainant on 19 December 2008.

8. In a telephone conversation with the Ombudsman's services on 27 January 2009, the complainant stated that he was satisfied with the outcome of his complaint and that he therefore considered it to have been solved. He thanked the Ombudsman for his help.

Conclusions

The Ombudsman is pleased to note that EPSO promptly addressed the complainant's problem and resolved it to the latter's satisfaction. He therefore considers that EPSO has taken steps to settle the present complaint and closes the case accordingly.

The complainant and EPSO will be informed of this decision.

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

Done in Strasbourg on 26 February 2009