(1)

The provisions of these general rules apply unless the notice of competition states otherwise.

(2)

Candidates receive time-sensitive information in their candidate accounts. They should check their candidate account at least every 3 calendar days to keep track of their progress during the competition and to avoid missing a deadline.

If a candidate cannot check their candidate account due to a technical problem on the part of EPSO, they must notify EPSO immediately via the online contact form  (1).

(3)

Where several candidates tie for the last available place at any phase of the competition, they will all go on to the next phase of the competition. Where several candidates tie for the last available place on a reserve list, they will all be included on that reserve list.

(4)

Any candidates readmitted following a successful request, complaint, or appeal will either (a) re-enter the competition at the phase from which they had been excluded; or (b) be added to the reserve list, as applicable.

(5)

When EPSO addresses a candidate via the candidate account or by email, it will do so in one of the languages that the candidate has declared to have knowledge of at level B2 or higher (2) in the ‘Reading’ field of the ‘Languages’ section in the application form (see also Section 2.1 of these general rules).

(6)

Candidates can contact EPSO via the online contact form available on the EPSO website (3). Before contacting EPSO, candidates are invited to consult the ‘frequently asked questions’ section on the EPSO website (4).

(7)

EPSO reserves the right to cease any improper (i.e. repetitive, abusive and/or irrelevant) correspondence.

(1)

(2)

(1)

To be taken into account, professional experience must meet the following general conditions:

(2)

Professional experience, as listed below, will also be considered in the light of specific rules, including certain exemptions from the requirements referred to in paragraph (1) above:

(1)

Candidates will have to upload – to their candidate account – copies of the documents supporting the declarations made in their application form (see also Section 2.1 of these general rules). They will have to do so by the date established in the notice of competition or – if no date is set by the notice – by the date indicated by EPSO.

(2)

Failure to provide supporting document(s) by the date mentioned above may result in a candidate being considered ineligible or in their specific educational qualifications or experience not being taken into account.

(3)

At any phase of the procedure, candidates may be requested to provide additional information or documents.

(4)

Among other documents, candidates will have to upload a copy of their identity card or passport which must be valid on the closing date for the applications. When requested, candidates will have to present an original of their identity card or a passport.

(5)

As a proof of their educational qualifications, candidates will have to provide at least:

(6)

All periods of professional activity must be covered by originals or certified copies of the following documents:

(1)

The Selection Board of the competition decides on the difficulty of the competition tests and approves their content, assesses the candidates’ compliance with the specific eligibility conditions, compares candidates’ merits, and selects the best candidates in the light of the requirements set out in the notice of competition.

(2)

The proceedings of the Selection Board are secret.

(3)

The work of the Selection Board is facilitated by EPSO.

(1)

The names of the Board members are published on the EPSO website (7).

(2)

Candidates, Selection Board members, and EPSO staff members facilitating the organisation of a specific competition are required to declare any conflict of interest that might arise, in particular, in cases of a family or direct working relationship. A situation that might constitute a conflict of interest must be declared to EPSO as soon as the person concerned becomes aware of it. EPSO will evaluate each case individually and take appropriate measures.

(3)

To ensure the Selection Board’s independence, except in expressly authorised cases, it is strictly forbidden for candidates or anyone outside the Board to attempt to contact any of its members on any matter related to the competition or the Board’s proceedings.

(4)

Candidates who wish to state their case to the Selection Board must do so in writing, submitting this correspondence via their candidate account.

(5)

A breach of any of the rules mentioned above could result in disciplinary action against a Selection Board member or EPSO staff member and/or in disqualification of a candidate from the competition (see Section 6).

(1)

EPSO will inform candidates on the testing modalities as well as any necessary details and instructions at the latest when inviting the candidates to the tests.

(2)

If and when instructed, candidates must book a test appointment following the instructions received from EPSO. The booking and testing periods are limited.

(3)

Candidates must complete all the necessary steps referred to in the instructions issued prior to the tests, such as installing software, performing the required synchronisation(s), undergoing a connectivity trial, technical prerequisites’ test, or a systems’ check and/or taking a mock test. Compliance with instructions will allow to check the readiness of the candidate’s IT environment and the compatibility of the candidate’s device with the testing platform or application. Failure to complete the mandatory steps may prevent the candidate from taking the tests and will impede the ability of the test delivery provider to address effectively any technical issues encountered by the candidate during testing.

(4)

In cases where candidates fail to book, sit or complete one or more of the tests, it will be considered that their participation in the competition has come to an end, unless the candidates can prove that the failure to book, sit or complete a test was due to circumstances beyond the candidates’ control or due to a situation of force majeure. They should contact EPSO as soon as possible, preferably before the test, and must provide the necessary justification, including, where applicable, proof that they contacted the technical support services.

(5)

Failure to comply with the terms and conditions applicable in relation to testing, specified in the instructions and information made available to candidates, will not be considered as a circumstance beyond the candidates’ control or a situation of force majeure.

(6)

Candidates are also invited to consult EPSO’s website (8) to become more familiar with EPSO’s selection procedures, including general requirements applicable to testing.

(1)

Candidates may be disqualified at any stage of the competition on the following grounds:

(2)

Candidates for recruitment by the EU institutions are expected to act with the highest possible integrity, in accordance with Article 27, first paragraph, and Article 28(c) of the Staff Regulations. In case of fraud or attempted fraud, EPSO may decide to declare a candidate ineligible for future competitions for a limited period of time.

(1)

If at any phase of the selection procedure candidates encounter a serious technical or organisational problem, they should inform EPSO via their candidate account.

(2)

For issues with the candidate account or the application form, candidates must contact EPSO immediately and in any case before the deadline for applications.

(3)

If the problem occurs during testing, a candidate must do both of the following:

(4)

Complaints received after the deadline specified in this point will be considered inadmissible.

(5)

Complaints about technical issues, submitted by candidates who failed to undertake the steps referred to in Section 5(3) will be considered inadmissible unless the candidate can prove that the failure to complete the necessary steps was due to circumstances beyond the candidates’ control or due to a situation of force majeure.

(6)

Claims made in the context of complaints referred to in Sections 7.2.2 and 7.3.1 and based on alleged technical and/or organisational issues that had not been reported in accordance with Section 7.1 read together with Section 5, will be considered inadmissible.

(1)

Candidates who consider that they have justifiable reasons to believe that an error in one or more of the questions in the multiple-choice-question (MCQ) test affected their ability to answer, may ask for the question(s) concerned to be reviewed.

(2)

The Selection Board may decide to ‘neutralise’ the question(s) containing the error: cancel the question(s) concerned and redistribute the points initially allocated to that/those question(s) among the remaining questions of the test. Only those candidates who received the question(s) concerned will be affected by the recalculation. The scoring of the tests remains as indicated in the relevant sections of the notice of competition.

(3)

To introduce a complaint about MCQ test question(s), a candidate should:

(4)

Complaints submitted after the deadline or complaints which do not clearly describe the contested question(s) and/or alleged error(s) will not be taken into account. In particular, complaints merely pointing out alleged issues of translation, without specifying the problem, will not be taken into account.

(5)

Claims made in the context of complaints referred to in Section 7.3.1 and based on alleged issues in MCQ test questions that had not been reported in accordance with Section 7.2.1, will be rejected.

(1)

Candidates can request a review of a decision taken by the Selection Board, which establishes their results, determines whether they can proceed to the next phase of the competition, or affects their legal status as a candidate in another way.

(2)

The purpose of the review procedure is to allow the Selection Board to amend the contested decision in cases where there is a reason to do so (such as a mistake in the assessment). In the review procedure, the Selection Board will review its assessment of the candidate’s merits and will either confirm its initial conclusions or provide a revised assessment.

(3)

The Selection Board will not reply to any legal arguments, whether related to the contested assessment or not. Any arguments of a legal nature and claims related to the legal framework of the competition may be put forward in the form of an administrative complaint (see Section 7.3.1).

(4)

The simple fact that candidates may disagree with the evaluation by the Selection Board of their performance in a test or of their educational qualifications and/or experience, does not mean that the Selection Board made an error of assessment. The Selection Board enjoys a wide margin of discretion in making value judgements about candidates’ performance, educational qualifications, and experience.

(5)

No request for review is possible in relation to MCQ test results.

(6)

To introduce a request for review, a candidate must:

(7)

Candidates will receive an automatic acknowledgment that their request has been received. The Selection Board will examine the request for review and will inform the candidate of its decision as soon as possible.

(8)

Requests for review received after the deadline indicated in point (6)(a) above will be considered inadmissible and will not be examined, except where the candidates can prove a situation of force majeure.

(1)

Candidates may lodge an administrative complaint against a measure (a decision or an absence of it) if:

(2)

The complaint can be made against the absence of a decision in those cases where there is an obligation to take a decision within a deadline specified in the Staff Regulations.

(3)

Candidates who have submitted a request for review (see Section 7.2.2) must wait until they are notified of the reply to that request before they decide whether to introduce an administrative complaint. In such cases, the deadline for introducing an administrative complaint starts running from the date of notification of the decision of the Selection Board on the request for review.

(4)

Administrative complaints are examined by the Director of EPSO acting as the appointing authority under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

(5)

The purpose of the administrative complaints’ procedure is to verify if the legal framework of the competition has been respected. The candidates should note that the Director of EPSO cannot overturn a value judgement made by a Selection Board and has no legal powers to change the substance of a Selection Board’s decision. If the Director of EPSO finds a procedural mistake or a manifest error of assessment, the case will be referred back to the Selection Board for reassessment.

(6)

To introduce an administrative complaint, a candidate should:

(7)

Administrative complaints received after the deadline set in Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations will be considered inadmissible.

(1)

Candidates have a right to submit a judicial appeal to the General Court, under Article 270 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 91 of the Staff Regulations.

(2)

Judicial appeals against decisions taken by EPSO (rather than by the Selection Board) will not be admissible before the General Court unless a candidate has duly availed themselves of the remedy of an administrative complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations (see Section 7.3.1 above).

(3)

All the information on judicial appeals can be found on the website of the General Court (9).

(1)

All EU citizens and residents can make a complaint to the European Ombudsman about instances of maladministration.

(2)

Before submitting a complaint to the Ombudsman, candidates must first have exhausted the internal remedies provided by EPSO (see Sections 7.1 and 7.2 above).

(3)

Complaints made to the Ombudsman have no suspensive effect on the deadlines laid down for lodging requests, complaints, or judicial appeals referred to in these rules.

(4)

All the information on complaints to the Ombudsman can be found on the dedicated website (10).