Background to the complaint

1. In April 2016, the European Parliament published a call for expressions of interest for the purpose of recruiting drivers[1]. Applicants were required to have a thorough knowledge (level C1) of one of the 24 official languages of the EU (‘language 1’) and a satisfactory knowledge (level B2) of either English, French or German (‘language 2’). Language 2 had to be different from language 1[2].

2. The complainant, an Italian national, applied, choosing Italian as his language 1 and French as his language 2. He was subsequently invited to take tests, namely a multiple choice test, two practical driving tests as well as an interview.

3. In October 2016, Parliament informed the complainant that, on the basis of his performance in the interview, he would not be recruited.

4. A few days later, the complainant requested a review[3] of Parliament’s decision not to recruit him. Parliament replied in March 2017, maintaining its decision not to recruit him.

5. Dissatisfied with this reply, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman in June 2017.

The inquiry

6. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complainant’s position that:

a) the European Parliament was wrong not to recruit the complainant as driver due to the score he obtained for his performance during the oral interview;

b) the European Parliament was wrong not to disclose to him the results of his tests.

7. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman received Parliament’s reply on the complaint. The Ombudsman’s inquiry team also inspected Parliament’s file on the case. The complainant’s provided comments on Parliament’s reply.

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

8. The complainant argued that he had been interviewed in French only, whereas the call required also his ‘language 1’ (Italian) to be tested.  Furthermore, the mark awarded for his knowledge of French in the interview was inconsistent with the fact that he had passed a multiple-choice test with 30 questions in French. The complainant stated that he had, in the meantime, enrolled to French lessons in order to improve his language skills and that he had informed Parliament accordingly.

9. The complainant also argued that, by not disclosing all his test results, Parliament violated the principle of transparency.

10. Parliament stated that the substance of the complainant’s answers in the interview had been satisfactory, but that his level of French, his ‘language 2’, was not sufficient. He was awarded only one out of five points for his French, while the pass threshold was three points.

11. Parliament further argued the interview had not been exclusively conducted in French. The Selection Board had noticed the complainant’s difficulty in understanding questions addressed to him in French. Therefore, the Selection Board member who is an Italian native speaker had asked the complainant questions in Italian. Accordingly, the complainant had been given the opportunity to respond in Italian. Nevertheless, the Selection Board unanimously concluded that the complainant failed to demonstrate the linguistic competency required in respect of French as his ‘language 2’.

12. Parliament stated that it was not possible to take into account the complainant’s commendable efforts to improve his French. Selection boards evaluate candidates only on the basis of their performance during the interview[4].

The Ombudsman's assessment

13. During the course of the inquiry, upon suggestion from the inquiry team, Parliament agreed to release to the complainant the evaluation sheets with his individual marks in all four tests that he had taken, including the individual marks awarded for the various competencies assessed during the interview. The Ombudsman welcomes Parliament’s decision to disclose the complainant’s test results, thus allowing him to understand his weaknesses and to improve his performance in future selection procedures. The Ombudsman thus considers this aspect of the complaint settled.

14. Regarding Parliament’s decision not to recruit the complainant, the selection board in a staff selection procedure enjoys wide discretion concerning the methods and the detailed contents of the tests, as well as their assessment[5]. A selection board’s assessment of a candidate’s performance can only be put in question if there is evidence to suggest that the selection board has committed a flagrant breach of the rules of the selection procedure (in this case the call for expressions of interest)[6].

15. The selection board is required to ascertain whether candidates possess the knowledge and the professional experience necessary to perform the duties of the post advertised[7]. The call for expression of interest required the complainant to have knowledge of French at B2 level. A B2 level knowledge of a language means that the person should be able to “interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with native speakers quite possible without strain for either party”[8].

16. The inquiry team’s inspection of Parliament’s file confirms that the complainant was not recruited because the Selection Board found his knowledge of French insufficient. The complainant thus did not fulfil one of the criteria for being recruited. The fact that the complainant had passed a theoretical multiple-choice test in French (that is, a test assessing his knowledge as a driver, not a language test) is not sufficient evidence of a flagrant error of assessment by the Selection Board of the complainant’s performance in French at the interview. Passive understanding of a written text is very different from spoken interaction. Furthermore, the fact that the complainant subsequently decided to make efforts to improve his knowledge of French is not relevant for the Selection Board’s assessment of the complainant’s performance at the interview. Candidates are assessed on the basis of their performance during a test or an interview and they cannot rely on outside factors to argue that their performance deserves a better evaluation[9].

17. When conducting interviews, the Selection Board was bound by the conditions set out in the call for expressions of interest[10]. The call for expressions of interest provided that, at the interview, candidates’ knowledge of languages 1 and 2 would be assessed[11]. Consequently, Parliament was obliged to conduct the interview with the complainant both in Italian and French, while the content of the interview and the share of questions asked in each language were subject to the Selection Board’s discretion.

18. The inspection of Parliament’s file gave no conclusive information on the Selection Board’s method for assessing the candidates’ ‘language 1’ at the interview. The complainant argues that he was interviewed in French only, whereas Parliament states that the complainant was asked questions also in Italian and describes the context in which that was done, which gives Parliament’s statement a degree of credibility. On the basis of Parliament’s statement, it appears that the Selection Board did not violate the call for expressions of interest. However, as the complainant had failed to prove satisfactory knowledge of French, which meant that he could not be recruited, there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to inquire further into this aspect of the complaint.

19. On the basis of the above, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration by the European Parliament in not recruiting the complainant.

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following finding:

There was no maladministration by the European Parliament in not recruiting the complainant as a driver.

The European Parliament has settled the part of the complaint related to the disclosure of the complainant’s test results.

The complainant and the European Parliament will be informed of this decision.

 

Emily O'Reilly

European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 15/06/2018

 

 

[1] Call for expressions of interest, EP/CAST/S/16/2016, OJ  2016/C 131 A/01, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:C2016/131A/01&from=EN.

[2] Call for expressions of interest, page 3, point C.

[3] In accordance with Article 90(2) of the EU Staff Regulations: Regulation 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC) laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community, OJ 1962 L 45, page 1385.

[4] Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 December 2012, Mileva v Commission, ECLI:EU:F:2012:197, F-101/11, paragraph 46.

[5] See, judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 February 2004, Konstantopoulou v Court of Justice, T-19/03, ECLI:EU:T:2004:49, paragraph 60.

[6] Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2013, BX v Commission, F-88/11, ECLI:EU:F:2013:51, paragraph 37.

[7] Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2013, BX v Commission, F-88/11, ECLI:EU:F:2013:51, paragraph 38.

[8]https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/table-1-cefr-3.3-common-reference-levels-global-scale

[9] Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 December 2012, Mileva v Commission, ECLI:EU:F:2012:197, F-101/11, paragraph 46.

[10] See judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 March 2002, Bal v Commission, T-139/00, ECLI:EU:T:2002:65, para 35.

[11] Call for expressions of interest, page 5, point IX.