The case concerned a selection procedure for the recruitment of EU civil servants, organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO).

The complainant turned to the Ombudsman because she was concerned that EPSO had wrongly excluded her from the selection procedure despite her profile being more than suitable for the described duties.

The Ombudsman inquired into the issue, concluding that the assessment of the candidates is of a comparative nature, which means that only those with the best qualifications are invited to the next phase of the EPSO selection procedure. The fact that the complainant may have a profile that matches the described duties does not necessarily mean that the Selection Board wrongly assessed her qualifications. It may simply mean that other candidates had better qualifications. As the complainant had not put forward any argument or evidence to suggest a manifest error of assessment by the Selection Board, the case was closed with a finding of no maladministration by EPSO.

The background to the complaint

1. The complainant participated in a selection procedure for the recruitment of EU civil servants, organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)[1]. After she learnt that she had not passed the Talent Screener phase[2] of the selection procedure, the complainant asked EPSO to review its decision to exclude her from further participation in the procedure.

2. In late March 2017, EPSO replied to the complainant’s request. However, not satisfied with EPSO’s arguments, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The inquiry

3. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complainant’s concerns that EPSO had wrongly excluded her from the selection procedure despite her profile being more than suitable for the described duties. The complainant wished EPSO to admit her to the next phase of the selection procedure, that is, to the Assessment Centre phase.

4. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman’s inquiry team duly considered the information provided in the complaint. In particular, the inquiry team carried out a thorough analysis of the correspondence that had taken place between EPSO and the complainant before the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The exclusion from the selection procedure

Arguments made by the complainant and EPSO

5. In its reply to the complainant’s request for review, EPSO conveyed the Selection Board’s full understanding of the complainant’s disappointment at not being invited to the Assessment Centre phase of the selection procedure. However, EPSO explained that the Talent Screener is designed to identify the candidates whose profiles best match the described duties and the selection criteria set out in the Notice of Competition. Although the Selection Board enjoys a broad discretion when assessing candidates' qualifications and work experience, it is nevertheless bound by the wording of the Notice of Competition as published.[3]

6. The Selection Board’s value judgment regarding the candidates’ qualifications and suitability is of a comparative nature. It is based on predefined, objective criteria that are established in accordance with the Notice of Competition and apply equally to all candidates.[4]

7. On the basis of the complainant’s request, the Selection Board had carefully re-examined her file and concluded that there had been no mistake in the scoring process. The Selection Board found that the marks awarded to the complainant were correct - they were based on her answers in the Talent Screener and they complied with the pre-established scoring grid. The Selection Board also confirmed that the procedural rules of the selection had been duly followed.

8. The fact that the complainant believes that her profile matches the described duties does not constitute irrefutable evidence of a manifest error of assessment committed by the Selection Board.[5]

The Ombudsman's assessment

9. It may well be that the complainant is right in that her profile is suitable for the duties described in the relevant Notice of Competition. However, as EPSO explained in its reply to the complainant’s concern that she was wrongly excluded from the selection procedure, the Selection Board makes a comparative assessment of all the candidates’ qualifications and only the very best candidates are invited to the next phase of the selection procedure. The fact that the complainant was not invited to the next phase of the selection procedure does not imply that her profile was not considered suitable for the described duties and that the Selection Board thus made an error in its assessment - it means that there were other candidates who were even better qualified.

10. The complainant’s disappointment with having been excluded from the selection procedure is entirely understandable. However, beside her conviction that her profile matched the described duties - which may well be true - the complainant has not put forward any evidence or arguments to suggest that the Selection Board committed a manifest error in its comparative assessment of all the candidates during the Talent Screener phase of the selection procedure. There is thus nothing to suggest any maladministration by EPSO as regards the complainant’s exclusion from the selection procedure in question. The complainant may always apply again to EPSO selection procedures and the Ombudsman’s inquiry team wishes her all the luck in the future.

Conclusion

On the basis of the inquiry into this complaint, the Ombudsman closes it with the following conclusion:

EPSO did not commit maladministration in this case.

The complainant and EPSO will be informed of this decision.

Strasbourg, 20/04/2017,

Tina Nilsson
Head of Inquiries - Unit 4

 

[1] EPSO selection procedure EPSO/AST-SC/05/16 (SC1) - Accreditation officers/Receptionists.

[2] The Talent Screener is an online system in which candidates provide self-declared answers regarding their work experience, specific skills or knowledge, which is then evaluated individually for each candidate by the Selection Board of the given EU exam.

[3] Case T-244/97 Mertens v Commission, paragraph 44; Case T-25/03 De Stefano v Commission, paragraph 34; Case F 12/05, Tas v Commission, paragraph 43.

[4] Case T-71/96, Vinzek v Commission, paragraph 47.

[5] T-17/90, T-28/91 and T-17/92, Camara Alloisio e.a. v Commission, paragraph 90; T-46/93, Michaël-Chiou v Commission, paragraph 50; T-53/00, Angioli v Commission, Paragraph 94