Background to the complaint

1. In early 2017, the complainant participated in a selection procedure organised by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) for the recruitment of EU civil servants in the field of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and, in particular, in IT Infrastructure[1].

2. In April 2017, he was informed that his application had not been awarded a sufficient score for him to pass the `talent screener’ stage of the selection procedure[2]. This is the stage at which candidates’ professional experience is assessed on the basis of their responses to detailed questions[3]. EPSO also provided the complainant with the selection criteria and corresponding weightings (that is, the importance of each criterion) set by the Selection Board[4], with a detailed breakdown of his score, as well as with the threshold for being invited to the next stage of the selection procedure.

3. The complainant then wrote to EPSO and requested a review of his score.

4.  In mid-May 2017, EPSO informed the complainant that the Selection Board had re-examined his file and had confirmed that there had been no mistake in the scoring process. The Selection Board maintained its decision not to admit the complainant to the next stage of the selection procedure.

5. The complainant wrote to EPSO again, stating that he remained dissatisfied with how EPSO had justified his low score on three of the talent screener questions. He asked EPSO to give a fuller explanation of why he had been excluded from the selection procedure. The complainant also asked EPSO to provide him with anonymised answers of candidates who had passed the talent screener stage.

6. EPSO replied that the complainant had been given his score for each of his answers in the talent screener and that, according to EU case law, a candidate´s score is a value judgement which does not need any additional explanation. It also confirmed that the answers in the talent screener had been marked on the basis of predefined evaluation criteria established by the Selection Board.  EPSO stated that the Selection Board would not review the complainant´s talent screener responses a second time.

The inquiry

7. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the complainant’s concern that EPSO had failed to properly justify its assessment of his professional experience at the talent screener stage of the selection procedure. The complainant raised, in particular, the following issues: (1) the adequacy of the explanations given to him; (2) whether professional experience should have been assessed on the basis of the talent screener only and (3) whether the talent screener assessment was incorrect.

8. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman’s inquiry team held a meeting with EPSO, during which it also inspected EPSO´s file on this case. Subsequently, the Ombudsman received the complainant´s comments on the meeting report.

On whether EPSO failed to give sufficiently detailed information

Arguments made by the parties

9. The complainant contends that EPSO replied in a generic and rather vague way to his very specific questions about his score at the talent screener stage. In his view, EPSO was not entitled to refer to the secrecy of the Selection Board’s proceedings to avoid disclosing more detailed information on the assessment of his professional experience. He had a legitimate interest in having access to that information as it concerned him personally. In his view, the non-disclosure of that information precludes any possibility of a review of the Selection Board´s assessment.

10. The complainant also argues that EPSO’s refusal to disclose information concerning competing candidates was unjustified as he had asked for anonymised data. In his view, this refusal puts into question the transparency of the selection procedure and amounts to a total lack of accountability on the part of EPSO.

11. EPSO stated that the score awarded to the complainant reflects the Selection Board's value judgment on how well the information provided by the complainant met the relevant selection criteria. According to EU case law, this value judgement does not need to be substantiated further.

The Ombudsman's assessment

12. The marks obtained in various tests in a staff selection procedure constitute an adequate statement of the reasons for a Selection Board’s decision in relation to a particular candidate[5]. The marks enable candidates to know how they have performed and to ascertain that they have not in fact obtained the number of marks required to be admitted to any subsequent stages of a staff selection procedure[6].

13. In this case, EPSO has provided the complainant with the selection criteria and corresponding weightings set by the Selection Board, with a detailed breakdown of his score, as well as with the threshold for being invited to the next stage of the selection procedure. EPSO has thus given the complainant sufficient reasons for his exclusion from the selection procedure.

14. In view of its wide discretion[7], a Selection Board is not required to explain why some of the complainant’s answers in the talent screener were considered to be unsatisfactory[8]. Such detailed reasons are not necessary to enable the candidate to determine whether or not it is appropriate to make a complaint or to bring an action before the EU courts[9]. Despite this, in the course of this inquiry, EPSO provided more detailed information about the assessment of the complainant’s answers (see paragraph 20 below).

15. The fact that the proceedings of the Selection Board are secret precludes disclosure of details relating to Selection Boards’ comparative assessments of candidates in staff selection procedures[10]. Consequently and for reasons of data protection, EPSO was right not to disclose detailed information concerning competing candidates.

On whether professional experience should have been assessed based on the talent screener answers only

Arguments made by the parties

16. The complainant argues that, when assessing his professional experience, the Selection Board should have taken into account the whole application form, where he described his professional experience in detail, and not only the talent screener section. This is even more so as the maximum number of characters allowed for an answer to each of the talent screener questions was too limited to adequately describe the complainant´s twenty years of professional experience. In any event, the principles of good administration and legality would have required EPSO to show leniency and to ask the complainant to submit additional information in case the Selection Board considered that the information he had provided in his application was not sufficient.

17. EPSO stated that it was the complainant´s responsibility to prepare his application with diligence, making sure to provide all the necessary information. As regards in particular the talent screener section, it was clearly explained to candidates that the assessment would be made solely on the basis of their responses to the talent screener questions.

The Ombudsman's assessment

18. The Selection Board is bound by the Notice of Competition. The Notice of Competition clearly states that the Selection Board´s “assessment is made solely on the basis of [the candidates´] responses to the Talent Screener questions. [Candidates] should therefore include all relevant information [t]here, even if it is already mentioned in other sections of [their] application form”^[11]. EPSO’s position is therefore correct. The complainant´s request to be treated with leniency is unjustified and would lead to his preferential treatment when compared with the other candidates whose professional experience was assessed on the basis of the talent screener only, as set out in the Notice of Competition.

19. The complainant´s argument about the limited space allowed for an answer to the talent screener questions does not change the fact that the Selection Board is bound by the Notice of Competition. In any event, the Ombudsman notes that, although the complainant appears to complain about the limited space allowed for the answers to the talent screener questions, none of his answers exceeded 1000 characters, even though the maximum number of characters allowed for an answer to each of the talent screener questions was 4000 characters.

On whether the Selection Board made an incorrect assessment of the talent screener answers

Arguments made by the parties

20. At the meeting, EPSO explained to the Ombudsman’s inquiry team that the complainant´s answers to the three disputed talent screener questions were insufficient and too generic for the Selection Board to be able to evaluate the relevance of his professional experience. In particular, the complainant had not given sufficiently detailed information about his specific roles, tasks and responsibilities in his previous jobs. Due to the generic nature of the complainant´s answers, the Selection Board was not in a position to verify whether his experience matched the experience asked for in the respective talent screener questions. As an example, EPSO said that the complainant had given identical answers to two of the talent screener questions which concerned different types of professional experience.

21. The complainant does not consider that he gave generic answers. He argues that task distribution in the ICT sector in his country is less clear-cut than in other countries and that, as a result, an ICT expert is often called upon to perform tasks that in other countries are normally assigned to ICT experts with different specialisations. He could not, therefore, put the tasks he had performed at his previous jobs into distinct categories. EPSO should have taken into account these particularities of the labour market of the country where the complainant had worked.

22.  Regarding EPSO´s reference to the identical answers given to two separate questions, the complainant states that he had given a similar answer to another (third) question, for which, paradoxically, he was awarded the maximum number of points.

The Ombudsman's assessment

23. The Selection Board is bound by the selection criteria set out in the Notice of Competition. At the same time, it enjoys a wide margin of discretion when assessing a candidate’s qualifications and professional experience on the basis of those criteria^[12]. The margin of discretion given to the Selection Board means that the Ombudsman can question the assessment done by the Selection Board only in case of a manifest error^[13]. 

24. The inspection and meeting with EPSO, carried out by the Ombudsman’s inquiry team, confirmed that the answers given by the complainant under the talent screener were assessed according to the pre-established evaluation criteria. In light of this, and on the basis of the explanations provided by EPSO, there is nothing to suggest that the Selection Board acted arbitrarily or unfairly. The fact that the complainant was awarded the maximum number of points for a question to which he had provided an answer similar to the answer given to one of the disputed questions is not proof of inconsistency in the assessment: where the professional experience as described by the complainant indeed matched the experience asked for in the respective talent screener question, it was taken into account as relevant and was marked accordingly.

25. The complainant´s argument about the particularities of the ICT labour market in the country where he had worked appears to be of no relevance, since, as with the rest of the application, it was the complainant´s responsibility to describe his professional experience clearly and, in particular, to single out, among the various duties and tasks performed at his previous jobs, those that best fit each of the talent screener questions.

26. It is understandable that the complainant is disappointed about having been excluded from the selection procedure. However, the Ombudsman has not found anything to suggest that EPSO made an incorrect assessment of the complainant’s talent screener answers.

Conclusion

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

There was no maladministration by EPSO.

The complainant and EPSO will be informed of this decision.

 

Emily O'Reilly

European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 10/01/2019

 

[1] EPSO/AD/331/16-5 ICT Experts (AD7) IT Infrastructure.  

[2] The complainant’s application had been awarded 22 points, whereas the minimum score required for admission to the next stage of the selection procedure (`Assessment Centre´) was set at 39 points.

[3] Talent screener is usually used by EPSO in selection procedures for specialist profiles. As part of their application, candidates provide responses to detailed questions about professional competence and experience. These responses are then assessed by the `Selection Board´ (see below, footnote 4) to identify the candidates whose profile best matches the duties and selection criteria set out in the competition notice. More information at: https://epso.europa.eu/help/faq/2711_en

[4] Each selection process for permanent officials has its own Selection Board, which is responsible for selecting candidates at each stage and for drawing up the final list of successful candidates. More information at: https://epso.europa.eu/help/faq/2047_en

[5] See judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 December 2012, Mata Blanco v Commission, F-65/10, ECLI:EU:F:2012:178, paragraph 107.  

[6] See, for example, 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 33.  

[7] See below, paragraph 23.

[8] Judgment in Mata Blanco v Commission, cited above, paragraph 109.  

[9] Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 February 2014, De Mendoza Asensi v Commission, F-127/11, ECLI:EU:F:2014:14, paragraph 96.  

[10] Judgment in Mata Blanco v Commission, cited above, paragraph 106.  

[11] See point 3.4 of the Notice of Competition [“Selection based on qualifications (Talent Screener)”]. Similarly, the instructions given to candidates, in the application form, for filling in the Talent Screener section make it clear that “[s]coring is based SOLELY on the information [they] provide in [their] answers within this Talent Screener section. References to other answers within Talent Screener or to other parts of [their] application will not be taken into account” (emphasis in the original).

[12] Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 February 1999, Mertens v Commission, T-244/97, ECLI:EU:T:1999:27, paragraph 44; judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 May 2005, De Stefano v Commission, T-25/03, ECLI: EU:T:2005:168, paragraph 34.

[13] Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 May 2005, Gibault v Commission, T-294/03, ECLI:EU:T:2005:190, paragraph 41. See also Decision of the European Ombudsman closing the inquiry into complaint 14/2010/ANA against the European Personnel Selection Office, paragraph 14, available at: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/cases/decision.faces/en/10427/html.bookmark#_ftnref5