Background to the complaint

1. In July 2020, the European Economic and Social Committee (the EESC) published a vacancy notice for the recruitment of a policy officer in the secretariat of its Diversity Europe Group (Group III).^[1]

2. The complainant applied for the post and was invited for an interview, which took place in August 2020. The day after the interview, the head of unit of the secretariat of Group III sent the complainant an e-mail informing her that she was the best candidate and that a decision had been taken to offer her the post. The e-mail welcomed the complainant to the team and informed her that the EESC’s human resources directorate would contact her to arrange the administrative aspects of her appointment.

3. Subsequently, the complainant wrote to the EESC on several occasions to ask about the status of the recruitment procedure. In October 2020, she received a reply saying that there was no new information but that the EESC would inform her once there was.

4. On 26 October 2020, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman. She was concerned that the delay in recruiting her was due to irregularities in the procedure.

The inquiry

5. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry and asked the EESC to provide the complainant with substantive information about the next steps in the recruitment procedure. The Ombudsman subsequently asked the EESC for further information about the recruitment procedure. The Ombudsman’s inquiry team also carried out an inspection of documents and met with the relevant EESC staff.

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

By the EESC

6. In July 2020, each of the three EESC groups was allocated an additional administrator post under the organisational plan of the EESC. Once a post is available, it is the respective groups that determine the job description to suit their needs and launch the selection procedure.

7. The selection procedure in question took place during the ‘renewal’ of the term of office of the EESC.^[2] As part of the renewal, the Group III president was replaced. While the process of renewal and group constitution was ongoing, the EESC’s general secretariat had to ensure business continuity, such as in selection procedures.

8. For recruitments by the groups, the selection panels are usually composed of the head of unit of the secretariat of the group, a representative of the group (in most cases the group president) and one representative from a different section of the EESC’s general secretariat (in most cases from the human resources directorate). For Group III, the selection panel was composed of the outgoing group president, the head of unit of the group secretariat and a representative from the human resources directorate of the EESC. Under the EESC’s Rules of Procedure^[3], the group secretariat reports and is accountable to the group president. This is why the groups usually include the group president in selection procedures for their secretariats. However, where a selection procedure takes place during the renewal of the EESC’s term of office, there is no obligation for an outgoing group president to involve the incoming president.

9. In all selection procedures, including for the groups, it is the role of the EESC’s human resources directorate to inform successful candidates that they have been selected and to confirm the details of their appointment. As such, the e‑mail the complainant received from the head of unit of the group secretariat, informing her that she was the best candidate, did not correspond to the standard procedure and did not constitute a formal offer of employment.

10.  The outgoing president of Group III had requested the recruitment to be completed as soon as possible. However, on 18 August 2020, the candidate for the presidency of Group III asked the EESC administration to pause the selection procedure. He subsequently asked for a review of the procedure. The EESC carried out a review, which found that the procedure had been carried out in full compliance with the applicable rules.

11. In November 2020, the EESC informed all candidates that the selection procedure had been suspended until further notice. The EESC apologised and explained that, as a new president had taken office, Group III was reassessing the specific needs within the group secretariat.

12. In March 2021, the president of Group III requested that the selection procedure in question be closed without appointment, as changes in the working methods of the group and a redistribution of tasks meant it was no longer necessary. Instead, he requested that a new selection procedure be launched to recruit a communication officer.

13. In April 2021, the EESC informed all candidates that the procedure had been closed without appointment. The EESC apologised for the inconvenience caused.

By the complainant

14. The complainant said that, after she received the e-mail from the head of unit of the secretariat of Group III offering her the post, she did not receive any subsequent explanation as to her why the recruitment was delayed.

15. The complainant considers that there was no valid argument for preventing her appointment for a post she had been offered following a selection procedure that was carried out in accordance with EESC rules. The complainant therefore considers that she has been unfairly treated.

The Ombudsman's assessment

16. When this inquiry was opened, the EESC had not informed the complainant why there was a delay with her recruitment. In the course of the inquiry, the EESC informed the complainant first that the selection procedure had been suspended and, subsequently, that it had been closed without appointment. The reasons given by the EESC for this are set out above.

17. As the new president had different views on the group’s recruitment needs, the EESC’s general secretariat had no choice but to close the selection procedure without appointment. While this undoubtedly placed the complainant in a difficult situation, it does not amount to maladministration on the part of the EESC.

18.  Although consistent case-law establishes that a job offer is a mere expression of intention which creates no rights^[4], informing a candidate that they will be hired has potentially serious implications for an individual, who may make professional or personal decisions on the basis of such information. It is therefore highly regrettable that the complainant was prematurely informed that she would be hired before the formal appointment process began.  The Ombudsman will make a suggestion for improvement to the EESC concerning communication to candidates in future selection procedures.

19. The Ombudsman further considers that the issues arising in this case were the direct result of carrying out a selection procedure for recruitment to a group during the renewal period of the EESC’s term of office. The Ombudsman will make a suggestion for improvement to the EESC to address this.

Conclusion

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

There was no maladministration by the European Economic and Social Committee.

The complainant and the European Economic and Social Committee will be informed of this decision.

Suggestions for improvement

- The EESC should ensure that the procedure for informing successful candidates in selection procedures is known and followed by all relevant parties in the general secretariat and the group secretariats.

- The EESC should reflect on what happened in this case and take measures to avoid similar situations in future selection procedures taking place at the same time as a renewal of the term of office of the EESC. For example, it could consider following the practice of other institutions and introduce a rule whereby it is not possible to organise selection procedures for recruitment to its groups, except for very short-term contract posts, for a defined period before and after the renewal.

 

Emily O'Reilly
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 14/12/2021

 

[1] There are three groups within the EESC: the Employers’ Group, the Workers’ Group and the Diversity Europe Group. Further information on the Diversity Europe Group:

https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/members-groups/groups/diversity-europe-group. 

[2] Members of the EESC are appointed for a five-year term. The current term of office began in October 2020. https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/about

On 27 October 2020, Group III was formally constituted and the Group appointed its new president that same day.

[3] Rule 80. https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/about/rules-procedure-and-code-conduct-members-eesc

[4] See judgment of 10 June 2020, AL v the European Commission (T-83/19, EU:T:2020:254, paragraph 74). See also judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2010, Thomas Bleser v Court of Justice (F‑25/07, EU:F:2010:163, paragraphs 31-32)