The background to the complaint

1. The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) organises open competitions on behalf of the European institutions for the selection of future officials.

2. The complainant applied for open competition EPSO/AST/69/08 in the field of audio-visual/multimedia[1]. Although the complainant passed the admission tests, the Selection Board rejected his application, stating that he did not have an appropriate diploma.

3. The complainant considered that he satisfied the condition regarding the diploma, and asked EPSO to reconsider its position. EPSO confirmed its rejection of his application. The complainant then lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman.

The subject matter of the inquiry

4. The complainant alleged that EPSO wrongly excluded him from further participation in the recruitment procedure. He argued that his university degrees are relevant to the field of the recruitment procedure in question.

5. The complainant claimed that EPSO should give him (i) a second chance to work for the EU institutions; (ii) a satisfactory explanation as to why he was not considered on equal terms with other candidates; and (iii) a written apology.

The inquiry

6. On 1 October 2009, the complainant addressed his complaint to the Ombudsman. On 28 October 2009, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry and forwarded the complaint to EPSO, which sent its opinion to the Ombudsman on 13 January 2010. The opinion was forwarded to the complainant, who submitted his observations on 28 February 2010.

The Ombudsman's analysis and conclusions

A. Allegation of wrongful exclusion from further participation in the open competition and related claims

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

7. The complainant drew attention to his university degree in Film and Media Studies, which included practical courses on TV and Radio Production, and his Masters degree in Design for Interactive Media, connected with TV Production and Online Media Outlet Production. He stressed that he had also gained almost two years of professional experience by working for regional TV channels and radio stations, and that he had completed a traineeship in the Audio-Visual sector of the Commission's Directorate-General for Press and Communication.

8. The complainant was disappointed by the Selection Board's reply to his request for his application to be re-examined. He stated that he would have appreciated being treated in the same way as the other candidates, namely, with care and understanding. He stated that he expected a written apology from EPSO, a satisfactory clarification as to why his application was not considered, and to be given a second chance to take part in the competition.

9. In its opinion, EPSO explained that, under Section I of the Notice of Competition on duties and eligibility, candidates were required to have the following qualifications:

- a level of post-secondary education attested by a diploma relevant to the field; or

- a level of general or vocational secondary education attested by a diploma giving access to post-secondary education and at least three years' professional experience relevant to the field.

10. The nature of the duties was clearly described, and referred to tasks carried out by a conference operator responsible for operating sound and image equipment in multi-media or conference installations. Given that the duties of a conference operator, as set out in the Notice of Competition, require technical knowledge of electronics, the Selection Board reviewed the applications on the basis of the candidates' diplomas and, where appropriate, the subjects studied during their higher education.

11. The complainant's application showed that his studies were more film and media oriented. The field of TV production and interactive media design, however, is not relevant to the duties referred to in the Notice of Competition. It should also be noted that a conference operator is required to have specific technical and electronic knowledge to be able to operate technical sound and image equipment. EPSO indicated that when the Selection Board analysed the applications for Competition EPSO/AST/69/08, it considered that the diplomas which were relevant for conference operator posts were those, among others, in electronic studies, sound recording and broadcasting techniques, electro-acoustic or electro-technical skills, and in image technology and control.

12. The Selection Board then considered whether the complainant satisfied the alternative condition, namely, whether he had a level of general or vocational secondary education attested by a diploma giving access to post-secondary education, and at least three years' professional experience relevant to the field. The complainant had a secondary education diploma. His work certificates suggested that most of his experience was gained in the field of journalism. The Selection Board considered that, after obtaining his secondary education diploma, the complainant did not gain three years' professional experience which was relevant to the field of the competition.

13. EPSO pointed out that, according to the settled case-law of the European Union Courts, the Selection Board has to assess in each case whether certificates produced, or candidates' work experience, correspond to the level required by the Staff Regulations and the Notice of Competition. Under the relevant provisions of the Staff Regulations, it enjoys discretion to assess candidates' previous work experience, in terms of its nature and duration, and in terms of how relevant it may be to the requirements of the post.

14. In his observations, the complainant stated that the EPSO opinion was "purely defensive" and showed no goodwill towards him. He noted that part of his studies and his professional experience covered the listed areas. In his opinion, if a person can make documentaries and films for live, online emissions, they are also capable of conference operating since very similar, if not identical technical rules apply. At least, he argued, such a person would have the required basic knowledge and, in a very short period of time, they would acquire the necessary knowledge. In his view, he was overqualified for this competition. Finally, he stated that he understood that hundreds of persons had applied for this competition and that their applications could not be individually checked. However, he found it unfair and arrogant of EPSO to ask candidates to prepare adequately, to take time off work to take the admission tests, only to tell them subsequently that their application does not meet the eligibility criteria.

The Ombudsman's assessment

15. The Ombudsman points out that, according to the established case-law of the Union courts, the Appointing Authority and the Selection Board are bound by the wording of the Notice of Competition and that "the essential function of a Notice of Competition is to give those interested the most accurate information possible about the conditions of eligibility for the post in question so as to enable them to judge whether they should apply for it."[2]

16. Furthermore, according to the established case-law, the Appointing Authority and the Selection Board, respectively, enjoy a wide margin of discretion in establishing the requirements for a post, and in assessing whether candidates have the right qualifications to be admitted to the relevant competition[3]. The Ombudsman's role in inquiring into possible maladministration is not, therefore, to substitute his own judgment for that of the Selection Board. In view of this, the Ombudsman would only find maladministration in the present case if the Selection Board's judgment were vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

17. The Ombudsman notes that, according to the Notice of Competition, the admissibility requirements were the following:

"(i) a level of post-secondary education, attested by a diploma relevant to the field,

OR

(ii) a level of general or vocational secondary education, attested to by a diploma giving access to post-secondary education followed by at least three years' professional experience relevant to the field."

18. The Ombudsman further notes that the Selection Board considered the complainant's application to be irrelevant for the following reasons.

- The complaint's studies were oriented towards the field of film and media. The Selection Board considered that the complainant's diplomas were not relevant to the duties of the competition.

- The complainant has a secondary education diploma and experience as a journalist. But he did not have the requisite three years of professional experience relevant to the duties.

19. As regards the first requirement, the Ombudsman notes that Open Competition EPSO/AST/69/08 was organised to draw up a reserve list of conference operators (AST1), whose duties were the following:

"Conference operators responsible for operating technical sound and image equipment in multimedia/audiovisual or conference installations, whose duties will include:

- providing on-the-spot or remote control (from a central control room) for meeting and conference rooms,

- technical monitoring of image and/or sound recording of interventions made by participants (microphones, cameras, PC/DVD images),

- recording debates in digital format (video/audio server),

- providing a stand-by service for the central control room, covering the routing of A/V signals,

- assembling and placing mobile audio and/or visual equipment (e.g. cameras, wireless microphones, projectors, sound systems, screens, etc.),

- contributing to the smooth running and handling of equipment in conference rooms, including multimedia,

- facilitating the smooth running of a specific network of TFT information screens, and their operating software,

- conducting a daily check on audiovisual equipment for conference room installations,

- taking action and adjusting installations in meeting and conference rooms and central control rooms,

- selecting images from a multi-camera configuration of meetings and events, particularly with a view to broadcasting image and sound to a computer-based network (streaming) or other rooms."

20. The Ombudsman notes that the complainant has a university degree in Film and Media Studies and a Masters degree in Design for Interactive Media. EPSO did not list these degrees among those which the Selection Board considered to be relevant, namely, degrees in electronics, sound recording techniques, broadcasting, electro acoustics, electro technology, and image technology and control. The Ombudsman notes that the complainant does not argue that his degree in Film and Media Studies and his Masters degree in Design for Interactive Media constitute such degrees. Nor does the Ombudsman consider that the complainant has shown that the Selection Board made a manifest error in drawing up the list of degrees it considered to be relevant.

21. EPSO explained that a conference operator is required to have specific technical and electronic knowledge in order to be able to operate technical sound and image equipment. The complainant stated that he had studied some of the subjects which the Selection Board considered to be relevant, but he did not specify which ones. In his opinion, he is qualified to work as a conference operator.

22. The Ombudsman has no doubt that the knowledge and skills which the complainant acquired on his degree courses could indeed be useful for the post of a conference operator. However, the complainant himself does not appear to argue that these courses provided him with all the knowledge and skills he would need in order to perform the duties of a conference operator.

23. In light of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the Selection Board did not make a manifest error of assessment when it considered that the complainant's degrees were not relevant for the post of a conference operator. It should also be noted that, by stating that he could "in a very short time" acquire the necessary knowledge to perform the duties of a conference operator, the complainant himself admitted that he does not already have all the necessary knowledge.

24. As regards the alternative condition, EPSO stated that the complainant did not have three years of professional experience relevant to the duties. The complainant does not contest this statement. The Ombudsman notes that he seems to have only two years of professional experience, notably as a journalist.

25. In view of the above, the Ombudsman takes the view that the Selection Board remained within the bounds of the discretion it enjoys when it decided that the complainant's application did not meet the admissibility requirements laid down in the Notice of Competition. Therefore, there has been no maladministration by EPSO, and the complainant's claims cannot be sustained.

B. Conclusion

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

There has been no maladministration by EPSO.

The complainant and EPSO will be informed of this decision.

 

P. Nikiforos Diamandouros

Done in Strasbourg on 11 October 2010

---

[1] OJ 2008 C243 A.

[2] See Case T-132/89 Gallone v Council [1990] ECR II-549, paragraph 27; and Case T-237/95 Carbajo Ferrero v Parliament [1997] ECR II-429, paragraph 47.

[3] See Case T-54/91 Antunes v Parliament [1992] ECR II-1739, paragraph 39; and Case T-249/01 Boixader Rivas v Parliament [2003] ECR II-749, paragraph 29.