EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I. The European Communities’ Institutions employ staff with a wide variety of professional backgrounds and geographical origins, mostly selected through open competitions which since 2003 have been managed by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO).

II. The audit objective was to determine whether the personnel selection activities managed by EPSO were efficient and effective. As far as it was relevant to the audit scope, the EPSO Development Programme (EDP), adopted in September 2008, was taken into account.

III. The audit concluded that EPSO had successfully managed the increase in the number of competitions needed for the enlargement of the European Union, but that:

(a) staffing needs of the Institutions were not communicated to EPSO in a timely manner or based on a consistent methodology;

(b) the duration of the personnel selection process was too long, both in relation to EPSO’s own standards and international best practice;

(c) competitions only produced, on average, two-thirds of the targeted number of laureates (successful candidates who have been placed on the reserve list). This resulted from withdrawals caused by the long duration of the process; undue emphasis on specific language requirements; suboptimal communication of competitions; and pre-selection tests which eliminated more candidates than necessary to meet targets. Furthermore, the selection process did not achieve the broadest possible geographical balance amongst laureates;

(d) management information was not consistently reliable or comprehensive. Information on the costs incurred to place a candidate on the reserve list was not sufficient; the potential additional costs and future benefits resulting from the EDP were not quantified in detail; and information contained in EPSO’s databases was not consistently reliable.

IV. The EDP aims to reduce the duration of competitions to a maximum of 9 months and to increase their yield. It envisages inter alia a shift towards strategic human resource planning; more robust pre-selection; widespread use of computer-based testing (CBT); and professionalised selection boards. It is planned that the new procedures will be operational from the first quarter of 2010.

V. Taking into account the major change planned in the organisation of selection procedures through the EDP, the Court’s main recommendations are:

(a) EPSO should be provided with sufficiently timely and reliable information on the Institutions’ staffing needs based on a common approach to assessing such needs.

(b) The Institutions should second to EPSO a sufficient number of officials on a full-time basis and encourage their staff to act as qualified assessors.

(c) EPSO should strive to improve its communication strategy in coordination with the Institutions; exercise better quality control over competition notices; ensure an appropriate number of suitable candidates at all stages of the selection process, for example through adapting the specific language requirements; and take steps to improve geographical balance.

(d) EPSO should improve its management information. In particular, it should monitor the full cost of placing a laureate on the reserve list, and quantify the additional costs and assess the future benefits resulting from the EDP so as to facilitate decision-making by the Budgetary Authority.

INTRODUCTION

1. The Institutions of the European Communities employed over 36500 officials as at June 2007. In accordance with the Staff Regulations, recruitment is directed to securing the services of officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity, recruited on the broadest possible geographical basis from among nationals of the Member States of the Communities [1].

2. Officials are normally recruited from reserve lists established following open competitions [2]. Since 2003, such competitions have been managed by the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), the inter-institutional body responsible for selecting officials and other servants of the European Communities. Since its inception, EPSO has accommodated significant increases in recruitment due to EU enlargement.

3. EPSO was created by a joint decision [3] to obtain economies of scale in the organisation of selection procedures, in particular open competitions for officials. This joint decision gives EPSO the sole responsibility for drawing up reserve lists from among candidates in open competitions in line with the needs indicated by each Institution, the decisions to recruit successful candidates (hereinafter referred to as "laureates" being taken by each Institution. Further duties have been allocated to EPSO, in particular the task to give assistance with internal competitions and the selection of other servants. EPSO’s activities are supervised by a management board made up of representatives of each Institution.

4. The personnel selection procedure comprises:

(a) planning of the competition as based on staffing needs expressed by the Institutions;

(b) drawing up and publication of the notice of competition;

(c) appointment of the members of the Selection Board to be chosen from officials of the Institutions;

(d) drawing up the list of candidates who meet the requirements set out in the notice of competition, where necessary following a pre-selection through admission tests;

(e) carrying out of the competition stages (written and oral tests);

(f) drawing up the list of suitable candidates together with a reasoned report;

(g) publication of the reserve list of laureates;

(h) administering and checking the use of the reserve lists.

5. In 2008, EPSO’s management undertook a review of its organisation and operations, backed up by research of existing best practices. This review, which revealed weaknesses (such as the unduly long duration of competitions), led the management to design the EPSO Development Programme (EDP).

6. On 10 September 2008, the Management Board of EPSO adopted the EDP, which aims to reduce the duration of competitions to a maximum of 9 months and to increase their yield. It envisages inter alia a shift towards strategic human resource planning in order to decrease the time between the identification of needs and the launch of a selection procedure; more robust pre-selection; widespread use of computer-based testing (CBT) in the pre-selection phase; and professionalised selection boards.

7. The major change introduced by the programme will be the organisation of general competitions on an annual cycle basis [4]. Written and oral tests will be done in "assessment centres", introduced in order to assess candidates by applying selection methods that focus on key competences required. It is foreseen that this new approach will be operational in the first quarter of 2010.

AUDIT SCOPE AND AUDIT APPROACH

8. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the competitions system managed by EPSO was efficient and effective. In particular, the audit focused on whether EPSO:

- coped with the large increase in the number of competitions due to enlargement;

- received information about the staffing needs of the Institutions on a timely and consistent basis;

- provided reserve lists of laureates in a timely manner;

- ensured the required number and geographical balance of laureates;

- had reliable and comprehensive management information to achieve its objectives.

9. The audit focused on competitions for officials, due to their large number and long-term impact. It was based on:

- an in-depth examination of a sample of 16 competitions of different types (specialists and generalists, heads of unit and entry level grades, administrators and assistants); and

- an analysis of EPSO's database, comprising all data concerning 176 competitions launched from 2003 to 2006 and completed by early 2008.

10. The audit encompassed all stages of personnel selection involving EPSO, from the communication of staffing needs by the Institutions to EPSO up until the publication of reserve lists of laureates but excluding an assessment of the profiles and competences of the individuals selected from the audit scope. Nor did the audit cover the procedures for the detailed identification of needs by the Institutions and the recruitment of laureates from reserve lists by the Institutions, as these are not within EPSO’s area of responsibility.

11. The audit, started in summer 2007, covered competitions launched and finalized during the period from January 2003 (start of EPSO's activities) to December 2007. It examined EPSO's planning and management and its evaluation of its staff selection activity.

12. As far as it was relevant to the audit scope, the EDP adopted in September 2008 was also taken into consideration, with particular reference to determining whether all important aspects of personnel selection activities were addressed.

OBSERVATIONS

INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF COMPETITIONS WAS MANAGED EFFECTIVELY

13. Since its inception in 2003, EPSO witnessed a large increase in demand by the Institutions as regards competitions to be held, due to enlargement. There was thus a significant risk that EPSO could not launch and manage all competitions required.

14. The audit found that EPSO effectively managed the increase in the number of competitions, as no instances were identified where the launch of competitions was delayed because EPSO had reached its maximum capacity.

LACK OF TIMELY AND CONSISTENT INFORMATION ON THE INSTITUTIONS’ STAFFING NEEDS

15. Staffing needs should be identified and communicated to EPSO by the Institutions in a timely manner and based on a consistent methodology, so that competitions can be planned in an efficient manner.

16. In 2002, the Secretaries-General of the Institutions agreed that each Institution should inform EPSO of its recruitment needs for the next three years in order to allow EPSO to draw up a rolling three-year forward programme, to be updated at least every six months, with a view to meeting the needs of the Institutions in the best way possible.

17. The three-year forward programme was not implemented; for the period audited EPSO's rolling forward programme covered only 18 months as the Institutions failed to communicate their longer-term needs to EPSO.

18. Furthermore, no common basis or methods for assessing needs had been established by EPSO and the Institutions. There was, for example, uncertainty as to how the requirement laid down in the Staff Regulations that lists of suitable candidates established by the selection boards shall wherever possible contain at least twice as many names as the number of posts to be filled [5], should be implemented.

19. The lack of communication of timely and consistent information to EPSO by the Institutions regarding their staffing needs, and the lack of a common methodology for assessing such needs, resulted in inefficiencies and delays in the selection process. This was reflected at operational level in last-minute changes in priorities and needs in terms of the number of laureates required. It necessitated numerous corrigenda to notices of competitions already launched (see paragraph 43).

20. In the framework of its development programme, EPSO proposed and started to implement a standardised three-year draft forward planning schedule.

21. The effectiveness of this forward planning schedule will depend on its obtaining, on a timely basis, sufficiently reliable information from the Institutions based on a common approach for assessing staffing needs. It should be borne in mind that late delivery of the statement of needs or significant shortcomings in the forecast human resources requirements may lead to a mismatch between posts available and the number of laureates produced.

THE PERSONNEL SELECTION PROCESS TOOK TOO LONG

22. International best practice regarding the duration of a selection procedure in both the public and private sectors, as accepted by EPSO in the EDP, is 5 to 9 months from expression of staffing needs until employment.

23. However, under EPSO’s current pre-EDP planning system, the standard timeframe from the expression of staffing needs by an Institution until the formal offer of employment to laureates is 18 months [6]. This comprises 3 to 4 months for publication of the notice of competition; 11 to 12 months for the competition phase; and 2 months for the final interview and job offer.

DELAYS DURING THE COMPETITION PHASE

24. The sample of 16 competitions examined in detail showed that the phase concerning publication of the notice of competition took on average 4 months (see Annex I), in line with EPSO’s own standards.

25. However, the average length of a competition - from the deadline for registration by candidates until the publication of the reserve list - was 16 months, with the duration of individual competitions ranging between 9 months and 2 years (see Annex I).

26. The main reason for delays was the time needed for marking the written tests and for performing the oral testing of candidates. The sample of competitions analysed by the Court showed that these two stages alone may take up to 13 months. The main underlying cause was that the EU officials acting as markers or as members of the selection boards were not made available full-time for an uninterrupted period to perform their duties.

27. Unduly long selection procedures result in the Institutions not being able to recruit candidates as and when required, and may deter good candidates, either at the outset or during the procedure. Furthermore, according to candidate satisfaction surveys carried out by EPSO in March/April 2008 [7], the respondents were least satisfied with the overall duration of the competitions, which had a negative impact on candidates’ perception of the European Institutions as a potential employer.

28. In the framework of the new annual competition cycle foreseen in the EDP, EPSO plans to shorten the competition phase (from the publication of the notice of competition until the publication of the reserve list of laureates) to a maximum of 9 months. Key elements for achieving this objective are:

(a) a reduction in the number of separate steps in the procedure, the successive written and oral tests being replaced by a single phase,

(b) more reliance on efficient pre-selection through improved computer-based testing,

(c) the introduction of assessment centres with professionalised selection boards.

29. Successful implementation of the annual competition cycle will crucially depend on the willingness of the Institutions to second to EPSO a sufficient number of qualified officials on a full-time basis [8] and to encourage their staff to become part of the proposed pool of qualified assessors.

THE YIELD FROM COMPETITIONS DID NOT MEET TARGETED NUMBERS AND DID NOT ACHIEVE THE BROADEST POSSIBLE GEOGRAPHICAL BALANCE

TARGETED NUMBERS WERE NOT ALWAYS ATTAINED

30. The number of laureates targeted in the notices of competitions should be attained, so as to ensure adequate permanent staffing levels of the Institutions without compromising the required quality standards of candidates selected.

31. During the audit, a comprehensive analysis was undertaken of all data concerning 176 competitions launched from 2003 to 2006 and completed by early 2008. The targeted number of names on the reserve lists for these competitions totalled 15500.

32. On average, only two-thirds of the targeted number of laureates was attained [9]. Of some 208000 applications registered for these competitions [10], 95000 (46 %) actually attended tests. Of these, slightly more than 10000 succeeded as laureates [11], a shortfall of almost 5500 from the target (see Annex II).

33. The overall 46 % attendance rate included attendance at both traditional pre-selection tests (44 %) and at computer-based tests (54 %), which were introduced in 2006. The introduction of computer-based testing (CBT) has thus increased the attendance rate by 10 percentage points.

34. Of the candidates sitting the pre-selection tests, 28 % progressed to the subsequent written tests; 50 % of those sitting the written tests proceeded to the oral tests, while 74 % of those undertaking the oral tests were placed on the reserve list. Laureates thus comprised 10,7 % of those 95000 who attended tests.

SPECIFIC LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS MAY DETER GOOD CANDIDATES

35. There should be an appropriate balance between professional and language skills, so as to ensure the best qualified candidates are selected.

36. Article 28 of the Staff Regulations provides that an official may be appointed only on condition that he produces evidence of a thorough knowledge of one of the languages of the Communities and of a satisfactory knowledge of another language of the Communities to the extent necessary for the performance of his duties.

37. Prior to the establishment of EPSO, candidates could sit the competition tests in their mother tongue; knowledge of a second language was examined separately by a specific language test. EPSO started its activities at a time when the number of official languages rose from 11 to 23. EPSO considered that, for practical reasons (increased risks of erroneous or imprecise translation of tests, longer duration of the procedures, higher costs, etc.), it was not possible to hold each general competition in 23 languages.

38. Since 2006, candidates for all competitions have been required to take most of the tests in a second (normally non-native) language, to be selected from English, French or German. As a consequence, a very good command of certain languages now plays a more important role in the selection process than was the case in the past. Exceptions to this language regime apply for competitions for interpreters or translators, where specific requirements apply; and for specific competitions. Annex III sets out the distribution of second languages among candidates who actually sat the tests; this shows that English is by far the most frequently chosen second language (64 % of candidates), followed by French (20 %) and German (10 %) [12].

39. The current EPSO requirement can lead to situations where candidates, who might have all the required specialised knowledge and skills, are excluded from the outset from taking part in a competition if they do not have the required linguistic profile. This is for example the case for candidates who have English, French or German as a first language but an EU language other than one of these three as a second language.

40. A decision has been made in principle to hold at least part of the pre-selection tests in all 23 languages from 2011.

COMMUNICATION REGARDING COMPETITIONS WAS SUBOPTIMAL

41. Competition notices should be drafted and announced in a clear and precise way to attract a maximum number of appropriate candidates and allow potential candidates to determine without ambiguity whether they meet the conditions to apply for a competition.

42. Competition notices are drawn up by EPSO [13] after consultation of a consultative joint committee (COPARCO). The notice is then published in the Official Journal of the European Union (Official Journal). In addition to publishing the notice of competitions in the Official Journal, EPSO uses two other means to inform potential candidates: its website, on a systematic basis, and advertisements in newspapers, on a case by case basis. The website is the main source of information for potential applicants.

43. Of the 16 competitions reviewed in detail, 11 were modified by corrigenda; of the 11, 4 had to be modified twice. These corrigenda were needed to clarify the admission conditions, change the targeted number of laureates or correct errors.

44. As for advertising, the EPSO website was initially available in only three languages (English, French and German). In 2008, a 23-language opening page was introduced. EPSO also foresees the translation of all permanent parts of the website into 23 languages.

45. As a rule, notices of open competitions were only published in the English, French and German versions of the Official Journal. On 9 May 2007, Spain brought legal action against the Commission to order the publication of all notices of competitions to fill posts in the European Civil Service in the Official Journal in all languages. The case [14] is pending.

46. Lack of clear information as to the requirements of competitions gives a poor image of the EU as an employer. It may deter good candidates from applying and has led dissatisfied candidates to take legal action against EPSO [15].

47. In order to attract a greater number of qualified candidates, the EDP foresees the introduction of an enhanced communication strategy, including an improved website and more focused targeting of potential candidates.

Pre-selection tests eliminated more candidates than was necessary to meet targets

48. Pre-selection is an admission procedure for further testing; only the best-performing candidates are admitted to the written stage of the competition. Once admitted, the candidates are judged only on the basis of their performance during the written and oral exams. Pre-selection tests should be such as to ensure that a sufficient number of suitably qualified candidates proceeds to the next stage of the competition. EPSO’s EDP establishes that the ratio between the number of candidates invited to the assessment centre and the laureates on the reserve list should be 3 : 1.

49. The pre-selection tests [16] for the 176 competitions included in EPSO’s database eliminated 70000 of the 95000 candidates. As a result, the number of people who were able to take the subsequent tests was too low to meet the target of 15500 laureates.

50. This shortfall was aggravated by the fact that some 4000 candidates who had successfully passed the pre-selection tests did not participate in further stages of the selection procedure. In many cases, the reason for not participating was that they did not meet all the eligibility requirements stipulated in the notice of competitions; compliance with these requirements was only verified after the pre-selection tests had taken place.

51. To remedy the situation where there were not enough candidates who could take the written test, since January 2008, EPSO has reintroduced a procedure (the "repêchage" [17] of candidates) to fill the gaps left by those candidates who are successful in pre-selection tests but do not participate in further stages of the selection procedure.

52. Shortfalls in the number of laureates lead to the Institutions’ human resources needs not being met by permanent staff, and to increased reliance on temporary and contractual staff. This increases the risk of loss of institutionalised knowledge.

53. The EDP views pre-selection as an effective step to reduce the number of candidates to a manageable level where necessary. It discusses the option of excluding only the least performing candidates who have achieved a pass mark in each of the pre-selection tests, as well as all those who have failed any of these tests, from participating in the next stage of the competition, rather than selecting only the best performing for further testing. However, no decision has been made as yet.

THE SELECTION PROCESS DID NOT ACHIEVE THE BROADEST POSSIBLE GEOGRAPHICAL BALANCE

54. The Staff Regulations require that the Institutions recruit staff on the broadest possible geographical basis from among nationals of the Member States. This is only possible if the distribution of laureates on the reserve lists reflects such a geographical basis.

55. In view of the enlargements of the European Union which took place in 2004 and 2007, priority was given to candidates from the new Member States and a number of competitions organised by EPSO were open to candidates from these countries only. As the Court's analysis of EPSO's database (see paragraph 31) shows, out of the total number of 10151 laureates, almost two-thirds (6 416) were from EU-12 (i.e. new) Member States (see Annex IVb).

56. This analysis also shows that candidates from Member States with a relatively high proportion of the EU population tended to be under-represented amongst laureates. As the data in Annex IVa and IVb show, this applied not only to Member States like the United Kingdom, Germany and Spain within the EU-15 group, but also to Poland and Romania within the EU-12 group. On the other hand, with the exception of Austria and Bulgaria, candidates from smaller Member States tended to be over-represented compared to their countries' proportion of the EU population. This was in particular the case for candidates from Belgium.

57. As there may be several factors that affect the geographical balance, an in-depth analysis would be required to identify reasons for the imbalances observed. The EDP neither analyses nor addresses the geographical imbalances in detail.

SHORTCOMINGS IN MANAGEMENT INFORMATION

INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON COSTS

58. The cost of placing a laureate on a reserve list should be calculated by EPSO, so that it can ensure that an appropriate level of investment, in line with similar organisations, is made in the personnel selection process. Such an assessment is important, given the fact that the EU Institutions offer life-time careers.

59. There is not sufficient information available on costs, whether actual costs, standard costs or benchmarks derived from similar international public sector organisations. EPSO does not calculate or monitor the cost incurred for a laureate to be placed on a reserve list. It has service-level agreements with European Regulatory Agencies for the provision of personnel selection services, for which EPSO charges 6000 euro per laureate for open competitions.

60. The Court estimates that, based on budgetary execution, the cost incurred by EPSO was about 7100 euro per laureate; this comprises 4590 euro in direct costs and 2510 in indirect costs. Furthermore, in order to determine the full cost to the EU budget, the cost incurred by the Institutions (staff participating in selection boards, marking, invigilation etc.) must also be included, which would increase the aforementioned amount.

61. The EDP does not address the cost per laureate, and does not identify targets or standards in this regard.

62. Furthermore, the EDP envisages a range of measures (e.g. assessment centres) which would require additional financing during the implementation phase. However, it does not contain any precise indication with regard to the potential additional costs and future benefits as a consequence of the implementation of the EDP. Quantification of costs and assessment of future benefits would facilitate decision-making by the Budgetary Authority regarding the financing of this plan.

WEAKNESSES IN EPSO'S DATABASES

63. Databases should have appropriate built-in controls and contain information that is correct and timely, so as to help ensure an efficient process.

64. Candidates must introduce personal data via the Internet in order to submit their application. Later in the process, test results, data provided by juries and lists of laureates are also stored in the databases.

65. The audit revealed weaknesses in EPSO's databases:

(a) the system did not reliably reject multiple applications from one and the same person, which are expressly prohibited by competition rules;

(b) coding of information input to the system was inconsistent;

(c) certain data input to the system contained inaccurate or impossible elements;

(d) up-to-date information was not provided on the availability of laureates.

66. Multiple applications presented by the same person can be detected electronically only if a unique and unequivocal identifier is used, which is not currently the case. Furthermore, the same codes are not used consistently to record the same information about a specific stage of the competition (e.g. codes for candidates who are successful at pre-selection, written tests, etc.), resulting in a lack of harmonised data for analytical purposes.

67. Acceptance of multiple applications by the system entails the risk of unequal treatment of candidates. A lack of reliable, useful and timely management information at competition level and at a global level makes it difficult for EPSO’s management to identify patterns, emerging trends or exceptions to established norms.

68. EPSO foresees the introduction of a new database in 2010. It is important that the weaknesses identified above are appropriately addressed in this new database.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

69. Overall, the audit concluded that EPSO had successfully managed the increase in the number of open competitions required in the context of enlargement. However, the following shortcomings affected EPSO’s efficiency and effectiveness:

(i) Staffing needs of the Institutions were not communicated to EPSO in a timely manner or based on a consistent methodology.

(ii) The duration of the personnel selection process was too long, both in relation to EPSO’s own standards and international best practice. The testing phase experienced delays, mainly due to the fact that members of the selection boards were not made available on a full-time basis.

(iii) Competitions only produced on average two-thirds of the targeted number of laureates. This resulted from withdrawals caused by the long duration of the process, undue emphasis on specific language requirements, unclear communication of competitions and pre-selection tests which eliminated more candidates than was necessary to meet targets. Furthermore, the selection process did not achieve the broadest possible geographical balance amongst laureates.

(iv) Management information was not consistently reliable or comprehensive. Information on the costs incurred to place a laureate on the reserve list was not sufficient. The potential additional costs and future benefits resulting from the EPSO Development Programme (EDP) were not quantified and information contained in EPSO’s databases was not consistently reliable.

70. The EDP, adopted in September 2008, aims to reduce the duration of competitions to a maximum of 9 months and to increase their yield. It envisages inter alia a shift towards strategic human resource planning; more robust pre-selection; widespread use of CBT; and professionalised selection boards. It is planned that the new procedures will be operational from the first quarter of 2010. Taking into account the major change planned in the organisation of selection procedures through the EDP, the Court’s main recommendations are:

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING HUMAN RESOURCE PLANNING

RECOMMENDATION NO 1 COMMUNICATING NEEDS IN A TIMELY AND CONSISTENT MANNER

The representatives of the Institutions on the EPSO Management Board should ensure that the Institutions provide EPSO with sufficiently timely and reliable information concerning their staffing needs, on the basis of a common approach for assessing such needs in the context of a three-year rolling forward plan.

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING THE DURATION OF THE PERSONNEL SELECTION PROCESS

RECOMMENDATION NO 2 ENSURING SUPPORT BY THE INSTITUTIONS FOR PROFESSIONALISED SELECTION BOARDS AND QUALIFIED ASSESSORS

In order to achieve the reduction in duration foreseen in the EPSO Development Programme (EDP), the representatives of the Institutions on the EPSO Management Board should ensure that the Institutions support EPSO by seconding to the latter a sufficient number of qualified officials on a full-time basis and by encouraging their staff to become part of the proposed pool of qualified assessors. If such support is not forthcoming, other measures should be adopted to ensure the foreseen reduction in duration is achieved.

RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE YIELD AND GEOGRAPHICAL BALANCE OF COMPETITIONS

RECOMMENDATION NO 3 ADAPTING THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS

In order to place more importance on professional rather than language skills, the option to carry out pre-selection in all 23 languages should be adopted. The requirement of specific language profiles should be reconsidered; and more emphasis should be put on testing candidates’ ability to learn languages quickly in line with the new competency-based approach to selection procedures.

RECOMMENDATION NO 4 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF COMPETITION NOTICES

EPSO should apply strict quality control mechanisms to ensure the publication of accurate and clear competition notices.

RECOMMENDATION NO 5 ENSURING AN APPROPRIATE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES AT EACH STAGE OF THE SELECTION PROCESS

(a) Concerted action by Institutions for the development and financing of a common communication strategy to attract qualified candidates should be taken under the coordination of EPSO.

(b) In order to attain the required number of laureates EPSO should, at each stage of the competition, strive to ensure that an appropriate number of suitable candidates is invited for further testing.

RECOMMENDATION NO 6 IMPROVING GEOGRAPHICAL BALANCE

EPSO should identify in detail the extent of geographical imbalance, analyse the reasons thereof, and make proposals on how to improve geographical balance.

RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING MANAGEMENT INFORMATION

RECOMMENDATION NO 7 DETERMINING COSTS OF COMPETITIONS

(a) EPSO should identify the full cost to the EU budget of placing a laureate on a reserve list, and compare the results with similar international public sector organisations, so as to ensure that an appropriate level of investment is made in the personnel selection process.

(b) EPSO should also quantify the potential additional costs and assess the future benefits arising from the implementation of the EDP, in order to facilitate decision-making by the Budgetary Authority to finance this plan.

RECOMMENDATION NO 8 INTRODUCING A NEW DATABASE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF COMPETITIONS

EPSO should take steps to ensure that the new database for managing competitions is designed to avoid entry of irregular multiple applications, is used consistently for all competitions and produces reliable, useful and timely management information at competition level and at a global level.

This Report was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its meeting of 11 June 2009.

For the Court of Auditors

+++++ TIFF +++++

Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira

President

[1] Article 27 of the staff regulations.

[2] Pursuant to Article 29 and Annex III of the Staff Regulations such competitions are open to all candidates who meet the admission conditions.

[3] Decision 2002/620/EC of the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Ombudsman of 25 July 2002 establishing a European Communities Personnel Selection Office (OJ L 197, 26.7.2002, p. 53).

[4] Every year three cycles of general competitions (for administrators, assistants and linguists) will be launched, with each planned to be completed within a maximum of nine months. In addition, there will be competitions for specialist profiles if and when necessary.

[5] Article 5 of Annex III of the Staff Regulations.

[6] This figure does not include a further 6-month period required for the identification of needs by the Institutions.

[7] Almost 23000 candidates from previous general administrator competitions (AD 5 level for all professional fields from 25 Member States) were asked for their opinion on different aspects of the selection procedure; almost 4000 responses were received. A full summary of the results is published on EPSO’s website http://europa.eu/epso/documents/Survey_Satisfaction_EN.pdf.

[8] The EDP envisages that qualified officials should be seconded for at least two and a maximum of four annual competition cycles.

[9] An average yield of only two-thirds of the targeted numbers was also observed for competitions reserved for citizens from EU-12 Member States in the context of enlargement.

[10] Since the inception of EPSO, registration for competitions has been made significantly easier by the introduction of on-line applications.

[11] These laureates are included in reserve lists from which vacant posts are filled. The number of laureates on the lists does not correspond to the number actually recruited by the Institutions which is necessarily lower for various reasons (e.g. laureates no longer available or declining job offers; no vacant posts available).

[12] It should be kept in mind that in many of the 176 competitions for which the data have been analysed by the Court, the choice of the candidates was limited to these three languages.

[13] The Institutions have delegated their related powers to EPSO (Article 2 of Decision 2002/621/EC of 25 July 2002 on the organisation and operation of the European Communities Personnel Selection Office (OJ L 197, 26.7.2002, p. 56)).

[14] T-156/07.

[15] See for example case F-25/05 where the Civil Service Tribunal annulled the decisions of the selection board of 6 and 7 September 2004 not to admit the applicants to the tests for Competition EPSO/C/11/03.

[16] Or the written tests where no preselection tests took place.

[17] The "repêchage" occurs between the pre-selection and written tests. Where the number of candidates who have been successful in the pre-selection tests and who have fulfilled the eligibility criteria is insufficient, the shortfall is made up by inviting the next-highest-placed eligible candidates from the pre-selection tests to the written tests.

--------------------------------------------------

ANNEX I

DURATION OF COMPETITIONS

Source: European Court of Auditors on the basis of EPSO, COPARCO and OJ data.

| Competition code | Profile | Approval of competition notice by the EPSO Board | Examination of competition notice by COPARCO [1] | Publication in the Official Journal | Deadline for registration | Sitting of written tests | Completion of oral tests | Publication of reserve list | Duration of competition |

| | | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) = (7) - (4) |

1 | EPSO/LA/10/03 | Head of linguistic division/ Legal specialist LA3 | 10.12.2002 | 28.2.2003 | 15.4.2003 | 23.5.2003 | 19.3.2004 | 7.7.2004 | 7.7.2004 | 13 months and 14 days |

2 | EPSO/A/2/03 | Czech citizens Assistant administrator AD8 | 10.12.2002 | 29.4.2003 | 22.5.2003 | 24.6.2003 | 12.12.2003 | 28.6.2004 | 22.7.2004 | 13 months |

3 | EPSO/A/8/03 | Polish citizens Assistant administrator AD8 | 10.12.2002 | 29.4.2003 | 22.5.2003 | 24.6.2003 | 12.12.2003 | 28.7.2004 | 30.7.2004 | 13 months and 6 days |

4 | EPSO/C/4/03 | Hungarian citizens Secretaries C5/C4 | 10.12.2002 | 29.4.2003 | 22.5.2003 | 24.6.2003 | 28.11.2003 | 2.7.2004 | 7.12.2004 | 17 months and 13 days |

5 | EPSO/C/9/03 | Slovenians citizens Secretaries C5/C4 | 10.12.2002 | 29.4.2003 | 22.5.2003 | 24.6.2003 | 28.11.2003 | 4.6.2004 | 4.6.2004 | 11 months and 10 days |

6 | EPSO/LA/11/03 | Assistant translators LA 8 | 10.12.2002 | 29.4.2003 | 22.5.2003 | 24.6.2003 | 27.11.2003 | 14.7.2004 | 1.9.2004 | 14 months and 7 days |

7 | EPSO/LA/12/03 | Lawyer-Linguists LA7/LA6 | 10.12.2002 | 29.4.2003 | 6.6.2003 | 11.7.2003 | 24.1.2004 | 7.4.2004 | 7.4.2004 | 9 months |

8 | EPSO/C/11/03 | English-language secretaries (C5/C4) | 5.12.2003 | 7.10.2003 | 6.11.2003 | 8.12.2003 | 30.4.2004 | 14.3.2005 | 15.3.2005 | 15 months and 7 days |

9 | EPSO/A/17/04 | Administrators A7/A6 research | 5.12.2003 | 20.10.2003 | 31.3.2004 | 30.4.2004 | 15.4.2005 | 23.3.2006 | 28.4.2006 | 24 months |

10 | EPSO/A/18/04 | Administrators A7/A6 food safety | 5.12.2003 | 29.1.2004 | 21.4.2004 | 24.5.2004 | 28.1.2005 | 21.10.2005 | 21.10.2005 | 17 months |

11 | EPSO/AST/3/04 | Information Technology B*3 | 11.11.2004 | 10.11.2004 | 22.12.2004 | 3.2.2005 | 15.7.2005 | 23.5.2006 | 23.5.2006 | 15 months and 19 days |

12 | EPSO/AD/25/05 | Administrators AD5 Public administrator | 7.4.2005 | 22.6.2005 | 20.7.2005 | 29.9.2005 | 29.3.2006 | 21.3.2007 | 2.4.2007 | 19 months and 4 days |

13 | EPSO/AD/26/05 | Administrators AD5 Law | 7.4.2005 | 22.6.2005 | 20.7.2005 | 29.9.2005 | 31.3.2006 | 7.5.2007 | 7.5.2007 | 20 months and 8 days |

14 | EPSO/AD/29/05 | Administrators AD5 Economic/Statistic | 7.4.2005 | 22.6.2005 | 20.7.2005 | 29.9.2005 | 31.3.2006 | 28.2.2007 | 8.3.2007 | 17 months and 9 days |

15 | EPSO/AD/37/05 | Linguistic administrators AD5 (DE) | 20.10.2005 | 18.10.2005 | 23.11.2005 | 21.12.2005 | 29.9.2006 | 30.3.2007 | 19.4.2007 | 16 months |

16 | EPSO/AST/7/05 | Assistants AST 3 financial manager | 7.4.2005 | 22.6.2005 | 20.7.2005 | 29.9.2005 | 31.3.2006 | 24.3.2007 | 24.3.2007 | 17 months and 24 days |

| | | Average duration from approval of competition notice to publication in the Official Journal: 4 months | Average duration from deadline for registration to publication of reserve lists: 16 months |

[*] Common Joint Committee/Commission Paritaire Commune

--------------------------------------------------

ANNEX II

YIELD OF COMPETITIONS

Source: European Court of Auditors on the basis of EPSO data.

| Competition code | Profile | Expected number of laureates as per competition notice | Actual number of laureates | Yield |

| | | (1) | (2) | (3) = (2)/(1) |

1 | EPSO/LA/10/03 | Head of linguistic division/ Legal specialist LA3 | 108 | 20 | 19 % |

2 | EPSO/A/2/03 | Czech citizens Assistant administrator AD8 | 245 | 180 | 73 % |

3 | EPSO/A/8/03 | Polish citizens Assistant administrator AD8 | 305 | 252 | 83 % |

4 | EPSO/C/4/03 | Hungarian citizens Secretaries C5/C4 | 240 | 242 | 101 % |

5 | EPSO/C/9/03 | Slovenians citizens Secretaries C5/C4 | 95 | 50 | 53 % |

6 | EPSO/LA/11/03 | Assistant translators LA 8 | 1215 | 549 | 45 % |

7 | EPSO/LA/12/03 | Lawyer-Linguists LA7/LA6 | 360 | 216 | 60 % |

8 | EPSO/C/11/03 | English-language secretaries C5/C4 | 350 | 351 | 100 % |

9 | EPSO/A/17/04 | Administrators A7/A6 research | 180 | 107 | 59 % |

10 | EPSO/A/18/04 | Administrators A7/A6 food safety | 350 | 274 | 78 % |

11 | EPSO/AST/3/04 | Information Technology B*3 | 230 | 70 | 30 % |

12 | EPSO/AD/25/05 | Administrators AD5 Public administrator | 210 | 213 | 101 % |

13 | EPSO/AD/26/05 | Administrators AD5 Law | 180 | 174 | 97 % |

14 | EPSO/AD/29/05 | Administrators AD5 Economic/Statistic | 135 | 137 | 101 % |

15 | EPSO/AD/37/05 | Linguistic administrators AD5 (DE) | 35 | 37 | 106 % |

16 | EPSO/AST/7/05 | Assistants AST 3 financial manager | 310 | 217 | 70 % |

| Yield of a sample of 16 competitions | 4548 | 3089 | 68 % |

| Yield of 176 competitions launched between 2003 and 2006 | 15500 | 10151 | 65 % |

--------------------------------------------------

ANNEX III

BREAKDOWN OF SECOND LANGUAGE SELECTED BY PARTICIPANTS IN TESTS

Source: European Court of Auditors on the basis of EPSO data.

Member States | Number of participants in tests | English (EN) | French (FR) | German (DE) | Other Languages |

Belgium | 9496 | 5947 | 1537 | 127 | 1885 |

Bulgaria | 6260 | 3580 | 1553 | 1115 | 12 |

Czech Republic | 4728 | 3032 | 777 | 882 | 37 |

Denmark | 845 | 613 | 127 | 32 | 73 |

Germany | 4464 | 3210 | 651 | 487 | 116 |

Estonia | 1431 | 1132 | 107 | 162 | 30 |

Ireland | 519 | 115 | 328 | 25 | 51 |

Greece | 3166 | 2149 | 491 | 104 | 422 |

Spain | 3675 | 1908 | 952 | 55 | 760 |

France | 7595 | 5727 | 669 | 413 | 786 |

Italy | 9393 | 5370 | 2478 | 387 | 1158 |

Cyprus | 756 | 655 | 73 | 12 | 16 |

Latvia | 1452 | 1123 | 144 | 169 | 16 |

Lithuania | 2454 | 1789 | 338 | 293 | 34 |

Luxembourg | 160 | 55 | 40 | 51 | 14 |

Hungary | 6367 | 3927 | 1000 | 1378 | 62 |

Malta | 735 | 650 | 36 | 4 | 45 |

Netherlands | 881 | 608 | 99 | 34 | 140 |

Austria | 1032 | 806 | 102 | 96 | 28 |

Poland | 10919 | 6508 | 2541 | 1768 | 102 |

Portugal | 2229 | 1276 | 640 | 24 | 289 |

Romania | 7278 | 4557 | 2272 | 432 | 17 |

Slovenia | 1813 | 1404 | 140 | 247 | 22 |

Slovakia | 3971 | 2564 | 581 | 801 | 25 |

Finland | 1008 | 779 | 81 | 21 | 127 |

Sweden | 1160 | 936 | 133 | 16 | 75 |

United Kingdom | 1164 | 84 | 820 | 97 | 163 |

Total | 94951 | 60504 | 18710 | 9232 | 6505 |

Percentage | 100 % | 64 % | 20 % | 10 % | 7 % |

--------------------------------------------------

ANNEX IVa

GEOGRAPHICAL BALANCE OF COMPETITION RESULTS – EU-15

Source: European Court of Auditors on the basis of EUROSTAT, EPSO and OJ data.

EU-15 Member States | Population on 1 January 2006 (in 1 000) | Percentage of EU-15 population | Number of candidates | Percentage of candidates | Number of participants in tests | Percentage of participants | Number of laureates | Percentage of laureates |

Belgium | 10511,4 | 2,7 % | 20105 | 18,2 % | 9496 | 20,3 % | 820 | 22,0 % |

Denmark | 5427,5 | 1,4 % | 2093 | 1,9 % | 845 | 1,8 % | 127 | 3,4 % |

Germany | 82438,0 | 21,2 % | 9480 | 8,6 % | 4464 | 9,5 % | 467 | 12,5 % |

Ireland | 4209,0 | 1,1 % | 1456 | 1,3 % | 519 | 1,1 % | 97 | 2,6 % |

Greece | 11125,2 | 2,9 % | 7655 | 6,9 % | 3166 | 6,8 % | 163 | 4,4 % |

Spain | 43758,3 | 11,2 % | 8966 | 8,1 % | 3675 | 7,9 % | 272 | 7,3 % |

France | 62886,2 | 16,1 % | 16438 | 14,9 % | 7595 | 16,2 % | 582 | 15,6 % |

Italy | 58751,7 | 15,1 % | 25024 | 22,7 % | 9393 | 20,1 % | 424 | 11,4 % |

Luxembourg | 459,5 | 0,1 % | 354 | 0,3 % | 160 | 0,3 % | 16 | 0,4 % |

Netherlands | 16334,2 | 4,2 % | 1889 | 1,7 % | 881 | 1,9 % | 91 | 2,4 % |

Austria | 8265,9 | 2,1 % | 2717 | 2,5 % | 1032 | 2,2 % | 72 | 1,9 % |

Portugal | 10569,6 | 2,7 % | 6088 | 5,5 % | 2229 | 4,8 % | 148 | 4,0 % |

Finland | 5255,6 | 1,3 % | 2160 | 2,0 % | 1008 | 2,2 % | 149 | 4,0 % |

Sweden | 9047,8 | 2,3 % | 2860 | 2,6 % | 1160 | 2,5 % | 99 | 2,7 % |

United Kingdom | 60393,1 | 15,5 % | 3006 | 2,7 % | 1164 | 2,5 % | 208 | 5,6 % |

Total | 389433,0 | 100,0 % | 110291 | 100,0 % | 46787 | 100,0 % | 3735 | 100,0 % |

--------------------------------------------------

ANNEX IVb

GEOGRAPHICAL BALANCE OF COMPETITION RESULTS – EU-12

Source: European Court of Auditors on the basis of EUROSTAT, EPSO and OJ data.

EU-12 Member States | Population on 1 January 2006 (in 1 000) | Percentage of EU-12 population | Number of candidates | Percentage of candidates | Number of participants in tests | Percentage of participants | Number of laureates | Percentage of laureates |

Bulgaria | 7718,8 | 7,5 % | 10276 | 10,5 % | 6260 | 13,0 % | 387 | 6,0 % |

Czech Republic | 10251,1 | 9,9 % | 9338 | 9,5 % | 4728 | 9,8 % | 814 | 12,7 % |

Estonia | 1344,7 | 1,3 % | 2882 | 2,9 % | 1431 | 3,0 % | 379 | 5,9 % |

Cyprus | 766,4 | 0,7 % | 2133 | 2,2 % | 756 | 1,6 % | 130 | 2,0 % |

Latvia | 2294,6 | 2,2 % | 2751 | 2,8 % | 1452 | 3,0 % | 281 | 4,4 % |

Lithuania | 3403,3 | 3,3 % | 5290 | 5,4 % | 2454 | 5,1 % | 397 | 6,2 % |

Hungary | 10076,6 | 9,7 % | 13196 | 13,4 % | 6367 | 13,2 % | 971 | 15,1 % |

Malta | 404,3 | 0,4 % | 1687 | 1,7 % | 735 | 1,5 % | 209 | 3,3 % |

Poland | 38157,1 | 36,9 % | 22957 | 23,4 % | 10919 | 22,7 % | 1465 | 22,8 % |

Romania | 21610,2 | 20,9 % | 15627 | 15,9 % | 7278 | 15,1 % | 531 | 8,3 % |

Slovenia | 2003,4 | 1,9 % | 3868 | 3,9 % | 1813 | 3,8 % | 339 | 5,3 % |

Slovakia | 5389,2 | 5,2 % | 8151 | 8,3 % | 3971 | 8,2 % | 513 | 8,0 % |

Total | 103419,7 | 100,0 % | 98156 | 100,0 % | 48164 | 100,0 % | 6416 | 100,0 % |

--------------------------------------------------